Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 15th, 2018 at 2:10 PM
Title: Re: Instant Presence and Physical Pain
Content:
Malcolm said:
In any case, the Mahāyāna Sūtrālaṃkara, a summary of the third turning sūtras, beautifully states:

Jyoti said:
This is not a definitive sutra since it discusses sentient beings and samsara. My point of the citation is just to answer your two questions. Your first question is rooted in the basis of nondefinitive teaching, that's why there is no direct answer that is definitive to that, but only indirect answer that is definitive, that is, if you can read the meaning.

krodha wrote:
The idea that a "definitive" text would not reference sentient beings and/or samsara in its exposition is an absurd notion.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 15th, 2018 at 2:02 PM
Title: Re: Instant Presence and Physical Pain
Content:
krodha wrote:
Relevant stories about Sabchu Tulku and a siddha by the name of Lama Tenje:

Here is another story about the previous Sabchu Tulku - not the child who lives nowadays in Swayambhu, but in one of his former lives. The first Sabchu was a disciple of Situ Pema Nyingje, Jamgön Kongtrül and Jamyang Khyentse. Before he died, a horrible disease struck him; his stomach became one big open sore. It started with one sore and slowly it became bigger and bigger. Finally all his intestines were lying out in his lap. The pus, liquids and blood ran out onto the floor, all the way out to the door. There were definitely bodily sensations, and he wanted to scratch it all the time, so he asked to have his hands tied. They were tied with a white scarf to stop him from scratching the wound. His disciple asked, "Oh Rinpoche! This must be so difficult, it must be really painful for you." He said, "I'm not sick at all, there is nothing wrong with me." They said, "How terrible, all the pus and blood is flowing down the floor." He answered, "There is an old monk sitting on this bed, he seems to be moving around, quite uncomfortably. He wants to scratch his belly, but for me there is nothing wrong at all. I am not sick at all. However there is someone who looks like me sitting right here. He seems to be suffering quite a bit, but I am fine." If you are stable in practice, it is like that: there is no fixation at all.

There was another lama, in Kham, by the name of Tenje, a siddha who contracted the same sickness where all his intestines were hanging out. People asked him, "How are you feeling today?" He said, "I'm fine, nothing wrong at all." They said, "But Rinpoche, look down, you have all these sores and open wounds." He replied, "Yes, it looks like there is something wrong here, but I am quite fine. I am not sick at all." The people asked, "We think you will die soon, so will you please tell us where you will be reborn so we can find the tulku?" He said, "Yes, I can take care of that. Call my disciple Tendar." The lama then told his disciple, "Carry me seven steps to the west." While Tendar was carrying his master those seven steps, the master snapped his fingers and said, "May my realization take birth in your stream of being." Afterwards, he said, while pointing at the student, "This is my tulku, even before I pass away. Will he be okay for this monastery? Tomorrow morning at dawn, I will enact the drama of dying. I am going home to the dharmadhātu buddhafield of Akanishtha." The next morning he died while the sun was rising. His disciple Tendar later said that from the moment when the lama snapped his fingers onwards, he was totally undistracted; he never wandered from the state of rigpa. This disciple later was known as Tendar Tulku, and he had the same realization as his master - no difference whatsoever.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 15th, 2018 at 1:57 PM
Title: Re: Instant Presence and Physical Pain
Content:
krodha wrote:
You'd think after a multi-year hiatus we would get a different Jyoti.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 11th, 2018 at 11:51 AM
Title: Re: Do Admins/Mods have access to read our PMs?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Probably just means you need to delete some messages. You are only allowed 100 in your box at a time.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 9th, 2018 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: pre-emptive contemplation in difficult situations?
Content:
krodha wrote:
At any rate, the last time you posted here some years ago there was a huge language barrier issue, so hopefully we can remain mindful of that.

Jyoti said:
I am not aware I have change any of my language now as compare to that time. And I basically intented to use certain preferred term hoping my audience read the meaning rather than just word. In buddhism we emphasize the reliance on the meaning, and not the words, I don't care how good you may be at words, if you can't perceive the meaning, it simply mean you don't know. As a practitioner of dzogchen should have the insight to see the truth in other tradition, ultimately it is the about the teaching, not the tradition, nor the people that matters in a discussion.

krodha wrote:
I am saying we should be mindful that it is possible we can be either (i) talking past each other, or (ii) saying the same thing without realizing it.

For instance, translating jñāna as "intellect." You could be representing the intended meaning of the term correctly even though "intellect" really does fail to communicate that meaning. Or you could be misinterpreting jñāna altogether, so far I cannot tell.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 9th, 2018 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: pre-emptive contemplation in difficult situations?
Content:
krodha wrote:
But this is directed at you, so take it or leave it: my advice for dealing with difficult situations in everyday life would be to remain mindful of impermanence and the apparent peaks and valleys of experience. You will have difficult times, and you will have good times.

Fully expect difficult times and accept that it is part of life. Loss and difficulty is the other side of gain and easy times, so expect the ebb and flow. Be prepared and expect it, when it arises do your best to handle it effectively. What arises will fall, what comes together will fall apart, what is born will die... suffering comes from resistance and an inability to expand one's scope to see opportunity when doors close. Try to be an optimist.

Overall view this life like a dream. None of it is actually real. It is a magnificent display of color, sound and sensation. Investigate your mind, it is the root of it all.

As for contemplation, it is like a glass of water, there is no benefit for your thirst unless you drink it. And after you have you will see what color, sound and sensation really are, and how serious difficult situations really are in the grand scope.

Life is a teacher. Learn from your experiences, be thankful for this life. Forge mental fortitude in the flames of gain and loss. A small boat is tossed around by the waves, you can't fix the waves, but you can improve the size and strength of the boat.

Be well.

</life_advice>

Jyoti said:
When you expound these non-definitive teaching on a dzogchen forum, have you associate the teaching as non-definitive? What is the quality of dzogchen teaching are you trying to communicate to followers of other tradition of buddhism which are definitive?

krodha wrote:
You're barking up the wrong tree.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 9th, 2018 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: pre-emptive contemplation in difficult situations?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The force of prajñā in instances of equipoise burns away mental obscuration, and said afflictions are not dispelled any other way.

Like a massive release of tension in one's continuum, and then in post-equipoise negative emotions are diminished, in some cases nearly altogether. Certainly altogether for those who have fully exhausted the afflictive obscuration.

The internal reference point of mind, or subject that seems to relate to objects as an entity is like a tightly bound knot that carries a great deal of tension and residual impressions in the form of negative emotions, habits and tendencies.

In instances of true contemplation when that reference point collapses and is realized to be false, that knot is undone for the duration of the period of contemplation and there is a massive release of built up tension.

This is why Norbu Rinpoche says even remaining in equipoise for the period of time it takes an ant to crawl up the length of one's nose purifies eons of karma.

Jyoti said:
Mental obscuration is subsided temporary during mental equipoise, as such the state of Rigpa has no function to anything when the mental faculty is in equipoise, except for serving the equipoise itself (for nothing) due to concentration itself.

krodha wrote:
Equipoise [mnyam bzhag] is not a state of concentration.

Jyoti said:
Furthermore, mental obscuration is not mean to be force away by any conditioned state of meditation,

krodha wrote:
Equipoise is not a conditioned state of meditation, it is resting in a direct knowledge [rig pa] of the nature of mind [sems nyid].

Jyoti said:
to rid of mental obscuration, the only way is to intellectually recognise the problem with the insight that is gained from the knowledge of the base.

krodha wrote:
Prajñā naturally eradicates kleśas, just as heat naturally evaporates water.

Jyoti said:
What one experiences in the instance of equipoise is different from what one experiences in normal, distracted mental condition,

krodha wrote:
Obviously.

Jyoti said:
If these experiences are not integrated with the intelligence/jnana, they will continue to be the basis of distraction and defilements, when one is distracted from the instant of equipoise. The merit of equipose is great, but much greater would be the merit of awakening to the bodhi. One doesn't awaken to the bodhi by subdueing the intellect/jnana in equipoise.

krodha wrote:
Equipoise is precisely "awakening to the bodhi," as you put it.

One does not subdue jñāna, one cultivates jñāna. Vijñāna is what one aims to "subdue," so to speak.

Jyoti said:
Also a common sign of new student here, did they truly received the knowledge/Rigpa? It required an intellect/jnana to hold the knowledge, it is not about some practice to get into a certain state.

krodha wrote:
Jñāna is a function of rig pa [vidyā]. If you are resting in rigpa your modality of cognition is jñāna. Just as when you are in marigpa your modality of cognition is vijñāna [rnam shes].

And it certainly is about "some practice to get into a certain state," as a beginner if you do not make effort you are doing nothing. "Effortlessness" comes much later.

At any rate, the last time you posted here some years ago there was a huge language barrier issue, so hopefully we can remain mindful of that.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 8th, 2018 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: pre-emptive contemplation in difficult situations?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The force of prajñā in instances of equipoise burns away mental obscuration, and said afflictions are not dispelled any other way.

Like a massive release of tension in one's continuum, and then in post-equipoise negative emotions are diminished, in some cases nearly altogether. Certainly altogether for those who have fully exhausted the afflictive obscuration.

The internal reference point of mind, or subject that seems to relate to objects as an entity is like a tightly bound knot that carries a great deal of tension and residual impressions in the form of negative emotions, habits and tendencies.

In instances of true contemplation when that reference point collapses and is realized to be false, that knot is undone for the duration of the period of contemplation and there is a massive release of built up tension.

This is why Norbu Rinpoche says even remaining in equipoise for the period of time it takes an ant to crawl up the length of one's nose purifies eons of karma.

climb-up said:
I don't disagree with anything you said, and it reflects my understanding, I'm not sure how it relates to my question specifically though.

krodha wrote:
The above wasn't directed at you necessarily.

But this is directed at you, so take it or leave it: my advice for dealing with difficult situations in everyday life would be to remain mindful of impermanence and the apparent peaks and valleys of experience. You will have difficult times, and you will have good times.

Fully expect difficult times and accept that it is part of life. Loss and difficulty is the other side of gain and easy times, so expect the ebb and flow. Be prepared and expect it, when it arises do your best to handle it effectively. What arises will fall, what comes together will fall apart, what is born will die... suffering comes from resistance and an inability to expand one's scope to see opportunity when doors close. Try to be an optimist.

Overall view this life like a dream. None of it is actually real. It is a magnificent display of color, sound and sensation. Investigate your mind, it is the root of it all.

As for contemplation, it is like a glass of water, there is no benefit for your thirst unless you drink it. And after you have you will see what color, sound and sensation really are, and how serious difficult situations really are in the grand scope.

Life is a teacher. Learn from your experiences, be thankful for this life. Forge mental fortitude in the flames of gain and loss. A small boat is tossed around by the waves, you can't fix the waves, but you can improve the size and strength of the boat.

Be well.

</life_advice>


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 8th, 2018 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: pre-emptive contemplation in difficult situations?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The force of prajñā in instances of equipoise burns away mental obscuration, and said afflictions are not dispelled any other way.

Like a massive release of tension in one's continuum, and then in post-equipoise negative emotions are diminished, in some cases nearly altogether. Certainly altogether for those who have fully exhausted the afflictive obscuration.

The internal reference point of mind, or subject that seems to relate to objects as an entity is like a tightly bound knot that carries a great deal of tension and residual impressions in the form of negative emotions, habits and tendencies.

In instances of true contemplation when that reference point collapses and is realized to be false, that knot is undone for the duration of the period of contemplation and there is a massive release of built up tension.

This is why Norbu Rinpoche says even remaining in equipoise for the period of time it takes an ant to crawl up the length of one's nose purifies eons of karma.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 7th, 2018 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: pre-emptive contemplation in difficult situations?
Content:
climb-up said:
We all get distracted in out lives and all have times that we get completely lost and/or emotionally hijacked.
It seems like it could be a good idea to practice guruyoga, get into a state of contemplation, and then intentionally think about the type of situation that would trigger me, with the goal of being more ready to integrate contemplation into those situations.

krodha wrote:
You may not be completely aware of the implications of the state of contemplation.

But beyond that, as a beginner who is able to enter the state of contemplation, you certainly would want to simply rest in a relaxed manner so that you sustain that equipoise for as long as possible. Intentionally engaging in conceptualization will cause you to lapse back into afflicted mind.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 4th, 2018 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Weed is now legal in California
Content:
krodha wrote:
Soon the potency will be marked and regulated just like alcohol, and there will be a sliding scale available ranging from light to heavy effects, but until then it is a gamble and it is best to be cautious.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 3rd, 2018 at 8:22 AM
Title: Re: What is Dharmakaya?
Content:
krodha wrote:
From the standpoint of dharmakāya there is no thoughts or gaps, because thoughts never arose to begin with.

PuerAzaelis said:
Then why describe it as purity, stainless, etc.?

krodha wrote:
Dharmakāya is pure and stainless because it has never known affliction and is primordially unconditioned.

PuerAzaelis said:
PS:

On the other hand ...

When you look into a thought's identity, without having to dissolve the thought and without having to force it out by meditation, the vividness of the thought is itself the indescribable and naked state of aware emptiness. We call this seeing the natural face of innate thought or thought dawns as dharmakaya.
Dakpo Tashi Namgyal

PPS:

And ...

In reality, the calm state is the essential condition of mind, while the wave of thought is the mind's natural clarity in function; just as there is no distinction whatever between the sun and its rays, or a stream and its ripples, so there is no distinction between the mind and thought. If one considers the calm state as something positive to be attained, and the wave of thought as something negative to be abandoned, and one remains thus caught up in the duality of accepting and rejecting, there is no way of overcoming the ordinary state of mind.
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche

krodha wrote:
The insight involved very much has to do with the actual nature of the trio of stillness, movement and their knower [gnas gyu rig gsum], so these quotes are addressing the same principle.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 3rd, 2018 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Dharmakaya in Mahayana
Content:
krodha wrote:
There's no necessity to say there is an "inherent lack of nature", use whatever terms you like as long as the intended meaning is communicated.

You just seemed to be inquiring in what context we can say dharmakāya is innate or inherent.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 3rd, 2018 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Dharmakaya in Mahayana
Content:
krodha wrote:
Sure, the point is that we aren't talking about an inherent substantial nature, but rather that a lack of nature is the authentic mode of all things, and in this sense, since it is unrecognized, it is an innate aspect of apparent things that we must recognize.

Grigoris said:
Seems oxymoronic, doesn't it?  An inherent lack.

It is clumsy too.

Wouldn't it just be easier to say that beings lack an inherent nature, rather than saying they have an inherent lack of nature?

krodha wrote:
Hence our "essenceless essence" or "natureless nature."


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 3rd, 2018 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Dharmakaya in Mahayana
Content:
krodha wrote:
Tathāgatagarbha is a term used to designate the dharmakāya when obscured by adventitious affliction.

Dharmakāya is only "inherent" in the sense that it is the innate and actual nature of mind that is unrecognized and obstructed by delusion.

That nature is inseparable emptiness and clarity.

In that sense all that is being said is that the mind's lack of essence is an innate property, just as phenomena's lack of essence is an innate property.

Grigoris said:
Inherent and innate are synonyms, are they not?

krodha wrote:
Sure, the point is that we aren't talking about an inherent substantial nature, but rather that a lack of nature is the authentic mode of all things, and in this sense, since it is unrecognized, it is an innate aspect of apparent things that we must recognize.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 3rd, 2018 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: What is Dharmakaya?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The gap between thoughts is just stillness [gnas pa], thoughts are movement [gyu ba], and the knower is a relative cognition.

PuerAzaelis said:
If i take the rocks out of a hole, I have manufactured space.

Is that manufactured space different from the space that existed in the hole before I took the rocks out?

If yes, if there are really two separate, different kinds of space, then why the emphasis on the "gap-between-thoughts" view, which is a common view?

The dharmakaya, beyond the intellect, is ultimate reality.
Guru Rinpoche

From within the nature of originally pure stainless space, 
Awareness suddenly manifests. That moment of mindfulness
Is like finding a jewel at the bottom of the ocean.
This is dharmakaya, not fabricated nor created by anyone.
Garab Dorje

krodha wrote:
From the standpoint of dharmakāya there is no thoughts or gaps, because thoughts never arose to begin with.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 3rd, 2018 at 5:18 AM
Title: Re: Dharmakaya in Mahayana
Content:
krodha wrote:
Tathāgatagarbha is a term used to designate the dharmakāya when obscured by adventitious affliction.

Dharmakāya is only "inherent" in the sense that it is the innate and actual nature of mind that is unrecognized and obstructed by delusion.

That nature is inseparable emptiness and clarity.

In that sense all that is being said is that the mind's lack of essence is an innate property, just as phenomena's lack of essence is an innate property.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 2nd, 2018 at 12:30 PM
Title: Re: Weed is now legal in California
Content:
TharpaChodron said:
But marijuana is and has been everywhere in California long before this law, what are they doing that's so special?  You and Dzogchunma could have just stopped by my place, no line.

krodha wrote:
Marijuana is now recreationally legal in CA, which means if you are 21 you can purchase it without a prescription, just like alcohol.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 2nd, 2018 at 10:06 AM
Title: Re: Alayavijnana As Construct
Content:
maximohudson said:
My contention therefore is that Alayavijnana is a archaic mind construct which attempts to explain how this conditioning takes place.

krodha wrote:
Of course it is a construct, and the construct works, so whether it is deemed "archaic" or not is irrelevant.

maximohudson said:
It was developed before the advent of modern scientific instruments and procedures which allow us to know EXACTLY how connitioning works.

krodha wrote:
Modern science has no clue how conditioning works in this context, nor is it concerned with soteriology i.e., a means to uproot the species of conditioning in question.

maximohudson said:
Today we can view Alayavijnana as an early construct designed to explain something unknown. In this sense it can be compared to a geocentric model of the solar system to explain the rotation and orbit of the earth or the caves of wind the ancient Greeks believed to cause earthquakes.

krodha wrote:
The ālayavijñāna does not explain anything "unknown", it is merely a model that accounts for the cause of affliction, the means by which affliction perpetuates itself and can be exhausted in certain Buddhist systems.

Modern science is great for the empirical measurement of phenomena, but falls flat on its face when attempting to account for subjective processes and the nature of the mind in its coarse and subtle expressions.

Most modern scientists are physicalists and materialists. Inferior world views in the eyes of the buddhadharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 1st, 2018 at 1:30 PM
Title: Re: Dharmakaya in Mahayana
Content:
krodha wrote:
Here is a collection of excerpts on dharmakāya I assembled some time ago. I wasn't going to post it because it is somewhat overkill, but so far in this thread the definition of dharmakāya has been a bit vague, and the following does help address some of the questions in the original post. Hopefully it helps someone:

Dharmakāya ultimately represents a lack of an intrinsic, or essential nature, specifically the mind's ultimate lack of substantiality, from the Ārya-trikāya-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
Son of a good family, meaning of the dharmakāya of the tathāgatas is the absence of intrinsic nature, like space.
What is an absence of intrinsic nature? It is emptiness:
By what reasoning can it be shown that sentient beings have Buddhanature? Because all sentient beings are pervaded by the emptiness of dharmakāya... 'all sentient beings are pervaded by the emptiness of dharmakāya' means that the ultimate Buddhahood is dharmakāya, dharmakāya is all-pervading emptiness, and emptiness pervades all sentient beings.
-- Gampopa
Thus we can see that dharmakāya can be said to be synonymous with emptiness, however the dharmakāya is specifically the total realization of emptiness at the time of the result which dawns due to the accumulation of wisdom, which is why Gampopa states clearly that "ultimate buddhahood is dharmakāya". In this respect we come to understand that buddhanature [tathāgatagarbha], dharmakāya and emptiness are not different, and that dharmakāya is released from the obscuring factors that render it "tathāgatagarbha" once the total realization of emptiness occurs, as delineated in the Śrīmālādevī-siṃhanāda-sūtra:
In that respect, the dharmakāya of the tathāgatagarbha is definitely released from the sheath of afflictions. Bhagavān, the so called 'tathāgatagarbha' is tathāgata's wisdom of emptiness that cannot be seen by śravakas and pratyekabuddhas.
Huang bo elaborates on the synonymous nature of dharmakāya and emptiness:
Emptiness is the Buddha's dharmakāya, just as the dharmakāya is emptiness. People's usual understanding is that the dharmakāya pervades emptiness, and that it is contained in emptiness. However, this is erroneous, for we should understand that the dharmakāya is emptiness and that emptiness is the dharmakāya.

If one thinks that emptiness is an entity and that this emptiness is separate from the dharmakāya or that there is a dharmakāya outside of emptiness, one is holding a wrong view. In the complete absence of views about emptiness, the true dharmakāya appears. Emptiness and dharmakāya are not different. The most important thing is your empty, cognizant mind. Its natural emptiness is dharmakāya, also called empty essence.
The Ārya-dharmasaṃgīti-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra continues on the synonymity of these principles:
Whoever seeks the dharmatā of phenomena, seeks emptiness. Whoever seeks emptiness, cannot be debated by anyone. Whoever cannot be debated by anyone, abides in the Dharma of a śramaṇa. However abides in the Dharma of a śramaṇa, they do not abide anywhere; whoever does not abide anywhere, they are uncontaminated with regard to objects. Whoever is uncontaminated with regard to objects, they are without faults. Whoever is without faults, they are the dharmakāya; whoever is the dharmakāya, they are a Tathāgata; whoever is the Tathāgata, they is said to be nondual; whoever is nondual, they do not abandon samsara and do not accomplish nirvana; in other words, they are shown to be totally free of all concepts. Bhagavan, this is the Dharmasaṃgīti.
Jamgon Kongtrul continues:
The concluding practice is the conviction that the ordinary mind that was from the beginning the unity of clarity and emptiness is itself the naturally arising three kayas - its emptiness is dharmakāya.
As does Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:
The great state of dharmakāya is space-like emptiness. The expression arising out of the state of primordial purity is a spontaneous presence which includes the two form kayas - saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya. ... What that means is our essence, which is a primordially pure emptiness, is dharmakāya.
And Sakya Pandita:
The body of wisdom is adorned with thirty-two major marks and eighty minor marks, and is the saṃbhogakāya. The nature of that existing as emptiness is the dharmakāya.
For these reasons, the notion that dharmakāya is an independently established, monolithic pleroma is an untenable position. Dharmakāya has no foundation, root or basis, as Jigme Lingpa elaborates:
I myself argue 'To comprehend the meaning of the non-arising baseless, rootless dharmakāya, although reaching and the way of reaching this present conclusion "Since I have no thesis, I alone am without a fault", as in the Prasanga Madhyamaka system, is not established by an intellectual consideration such as a belief to which one adheres, but is reached by seeing the meaning of ultimate reality of the natural great completion.'
The Kun tu bzang po thugs kyi me long continues in this theme:
This meaningful supreme wisdom kāya, ultimate, natureless [rang bzhin med], the state of the nonarising dharmakāya, the lamp of the teachings, the great light of the dharmakāya manifests to persons who are in accord with the meaning.
Therefore we should understand that the dharmakāya and the three kāyas in general, lack the self-nature that would be required to be an established ontological entity that could be synonymous with the Brahman of Vedanta, as communicated in the Platform Sutra:
As to the three bodies [kāyas], the pure dharmakāya is your nature, the perfect and complete saṃbhogakāya is your wisdom, and the thousand billion nirmāṇakāyas are your practices (i.e., saṃskāra, “mental activities”). To speak of the three bodies apart from the fundamental nature is called ‘having the bodies but being without wisdom.’ If you are enlightened to [the fact that] the three bodies have no self-natures [svabhāva], then you will understand the bodhi of the four wisdoms.
The essential nature [svabhāva] of dharmakāya is essencelessness or naturelessness [niḥsvabhāva], for truly established, i.e., "existent" svabhāvas are impossibilities. From Ārya Nāgārjuna:
Svabhāva is by definition the subject of contradictory ascriptions. If it exists, it must belong to an existent entity, which means that it must be conditioned, dependent on other entities, and possessed of causes. But a svabhāva is by definition unconditioned, not dependent on other entities, and not caused. Thus the existence of a svabhāva is impossible.
Chokyi Dragpa states clearly that dharmakāya is empty of any essence:
Empty in essence, expansive like space and free from the limits of conceptual elaboration, is the dharmakāya.
The Rig pa rang shar proclaims the same:
The essence of the dharmakāya is empty.
This means that the conflation of dharmakāya with something like the Brahman of Vedanta, a transpersonal, ontological, truly established ultimate, is unwarranted and misguided. The great Buddhist adept Bhāviveka, addresses this misconception in many of his expositions. This excerpt from his Tarkajvala is especially pertinent:
If it is asked what is difference between this dharmakāya and the paramātma [bdag pa dam pa] (synonymous with Brahman) asserted in such ways as nonconceptual, permanent and unchanging, that [paramātma] they explain as subtle because it possesses the quality of subtly, is explained as gross because it possesses the quality of grossness, as unique because it possess the quality of uniqueness and as pervading near and far because it goes everywhere. The dharmakāya on the other hand is neither subtle nor gross, is not unique, is not near and is not far because it is not a possessor of said qualities and because it does not exist in a place.
Thus we see that the misconception that dharmakāya is an entity-like "possessor" of the qualities it entails is a mistaken view.

Dharmakāya is not an entity at all, as Sthiramati explains, entities in general are untenable:
The Buddha is the dharmakāya. Since the dharmakāya is emptiness, because there are not only no imputable personal entities in emptiness, there are also no imputable phenomenal entities, there are therefore no entities at all.
Dharmakāya should be understood as a quality, and not an entity, and it is for this reason that dharmakāya cannot be said to be one or many:
For 'not one, not many...' and so on, one and many means one and many i.e., both are nondual. Many means plural. Conventionally speaking 'I prostate' to that which is the dharmakāya, neither one nor many. If it is asked 'For what reason do we say though it is not one, it is also not many?' Due to that, since it is said 'non-arisen from the beginning', that which never arose from the beginning cannot have a phase of being one or many; like space, its nature is completely uninterrupted. Since all phenomena arise in the same way, therefore, what arises where? That which becomes a form of diversity is not seen by anyone, i.e. just as grains of rice arise from rice seed, likewise, whatever arises from emptiness is not permanent nor annihilated. Why? Free of all concepts, the victors see that to be empty and illusory.
- Siddha Nāgārjuna
Now, one may object, and state that the synonymous status of dharmakāya and emptiness would render dharmakāya an inert void, but this is also incorrect. As we can see from the Rig pa rang shar, emptiness is always accompanied with wisdom (i.e., pristine consciousness):
Since there is no cause for buddhahood in the beginning, in the end it cannot be created through a condition. Emptiness possesses a core of wisdom.
And the Kālacakra Root Tantra states the same:
Wisdom is merged into emptiness: uniform in taste, unchanging and permanent.
For this reason we should not associate dharmakāya with emptiness alone, but come to know that dharmakāya possesses a core of wisdom or pristine consciousness [jñāna], which is why dharmakāya and jñānakāya both representing buddhahood, are synonyms. Per Malcolm The Amnāyamañjarī, a commentary on the Saṃputa Tantra states:
The kāya of pristine consciousness [jñāna] is the dharmakāya.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 1st, 2018 at 11:15 AM
Title: Re: What is Dharmakaya?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The gap between thoughts is just stillness [gnas pa], thoughts are movement [gyu ba], and the knower is a relative cognition. It is called "rig pa" in that model but it is merely a relative and afflicted cognitive capacity. Rig pa just means to know, or "knower" in that context, but the knower is vijñāna or dualistic consciousness.

It is not the definitive species of rig pa spoken of in these traditions, at least not yet.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 31st, 2017 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: What is Dharmakaya?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Dharmakāya is not the space between two thoughts.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 30th, 2017 at 5:07 PM
Title: Re: What is Dharmakaya?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Dharmakāya is the nature of your mind.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 30th, 2017 at 3:24 PM
Title: Re: 'The observer is the observed' ---critique
Content:
krodha wrote:
You are correct in the sense that Krishnamurti is not promoting a Buddhist view in that regard.

In the buddhadharma the feeling of a separate observer is an illusory construct that results from ignorance regarding the actual nature of one's mind.

Delusion and afflictive activity (such as grasping) serve to manifest the fallacious appearance of an internal substratum that abides in time separately from perceived entities of various kinds.

Recognizing the observer to be a false construct is a cornerstone of the buddhadharma which is found in every system spanning the Śravāka suttas to the Tantras.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 27th, 2017 at 7:52 AM
Title: Re: Yetis are real, but are Himalayan brown bears
Content:
krodha wrote:
Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche once said for a short time in his childhood he befriended and took care of an adolescent yeti.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 20th, 2017 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Historicity of Shakyamuni Buddha
Content:
krodha wrote:
Worrying about the historical accuracy of key religious figures is a Christian pastime.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 16th, 2017 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: What is pure and defiled according to nyingma
Content:
MatthewAngby said:
So is it possible To drink wine still if I do  not lose total awareness

krodha wrote:
Yes just be mindful and don't get drunk. I personally don't drink wine at tsog, I just dip a finger and have a drop.

Some siddhas can drink excessively and never become inebriated.

Work with your capacity.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 15th, 2017 at 3:33 PM
Title: Re: What is pure and defiled according to nyingma
Content:
MatthewAngby said:
So this this is my Guess : So everything is of one taste, but we must also take into account the effects it might have on us? Is this what the sutra is trying to say?

krodha wrote:
Only buddhas are free of karmic influence.

For the rest of us, like Guru Rinpoche said, it is important that our conduct and mindfulness of karmic causality are as fine as tsampa, even if our view is as lofty as the sky.

The minute you allow your view to overtake your conduct you err into nihilism.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 15th, 2017 at 9:05 AM
Title: Re: What is pure and defiled according to nyingma
Content:
krodha wrote:
Drinking wine and eating meat is common place for Nyingmapas. I've encountered complaints from people who attended Nyingma centers that all they did was eat, drink wine and dance, an exaggeration I'm sure.

Consuming excrement etc., is more symbolic and has to do with the slowing down of natural physiological processes, or so I've been told. Yet I'm sure some fool at some point has literally consumed shit.

At any rate, in the context of the Nyingma, the sūtra excerpt you cited would be describing what is called "losing the conduct in the view" which is a nihilistic outlook that nothing matters that results from the mind clinging to ultimate truth.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 8th, 2017 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: ChNN's Lifespan?
Content:
krodha wrote:
To my knowledge all he has said about his lifespan is that he would have died long ago if it weren't for his daily Mandarava practice.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 29th, 2017 at 1:08 PM
Title: Re: Has the Heart Sutra Been Finally Proven as Chinese Apocrypha?
Content:
Temicco said:
... the rigid emicness in here is a bit hilarious.

krodha wrote:
If you want eticness the search option is fully functional.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 29th, 2017 at 9:56 AM
Title: Re: Has the Heart Sutra Been Finally Proven as Chinese Apocrypha?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Jayarava... tends to favour a naturalistic philosophy with I think is out of sync with the transcendent meaning of Dharma.

krodha wrote:
True, and not only that, Jayarava often heaves the view of modern science onto the adepts of the past and pities them for their "primitive" world views that "failed" to properly align with the reigning paradigm of materialism. He attempts to decipher principles like emptiness through the that narrow lens, and again blames the teachings themselves when he fails.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 29th, 2017 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: Has the Heart Sutra Been Finally Proven as Chinese Apocrypha?
Content:
Temicco said:
Whether Jayarava's ideas have merit, I don't know, but the rigid emicness in here is a bit hilarious.

I don't get the impression he's out to get the dharma, so people can relax, and learning modern Tibetan theological perspectives on the Heart Sutra won't help him with historical criticism of the text.

krodha wrote:
Have you interacted with Jayarava? He posts in forums from time to time, he's like an actual idiot.

I had a discussion with him where he completely misunderstood the two truths and butchered their meaning and intention, and then he had the audacity to blame Nāgārjuna when the principles no longer made sense due to being crippled with Jayarava's own ineptitude. It was one of the most insane conversations I've had in these forums. The entire thing tinged with this false confidence and authority in the attack on Nāgārjuna.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 29th, 2017 at 7:23 AM
Title: Re: Has the Heart Sutra Been Finally Proven as Chinese Apocrypha?
Content:
krodha wrote:
I would ignore anything Jayarava has to say, his so-called contributions to the world of Buddhist academia are essentially the ravings of an uneducated fool.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 28th, 2017 at 6:01 PM
Title: Re: Has the Heart Sutra Been Finally Proven as Chinese Apocrypha?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Malcolm said it well:

One might argue that Buddhology is just such a kind of surgery, but in general, in surgery, the surgeon has to be interested in saving the patient, and in the case of people like Jayarava, etc., I see no such interest at all. They merrily hack away at the body of Dharma, trying to remove what they perceive to problems and inconsistencies, blind to the problems and inconsistencies they themselves are introducing —— this is, in all cases, because they have not received a proper education in Dharma, and properly followed a master. There is no one more sad than a putative Dharma practitioner who has no master.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 26th, 2017 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: The "Self" in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
Since the matrix-of-the-one gone-thus is empty of the two selves, it is not similar to the self of the forders [tirthikas], and because uncompounded noumena transcends the momentary, it is permanent, stable, and everlasting. It is not that it, like space, is without any of the qualities, powers, and aspects of a buddha, and it is not like the self of persons that the forders impute to be permanent. 
- Dolbupa

srivijaya said:
Cheers krodha. Would be interesting to know exactly who the Tirthikas were and what they taught, in order to contrast. The name seems to suggest a forerunner of the Jains, or to be a generic term for non-Buddhists. Do you have any more information on them?

krodha wrote:
It is a generic term for non-buddhists, specifically those who adhere to eternalist doctrines, such as Samkhya Yoga, Advaita Vedanta, etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 26th, 2017 at 9:31 AM
Title: Re: The "Self" in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:


thomaslaw said:
Do you mean you do agree the Buddha nature is similar to Brahman the universal soul?

Thomas

srivijaya said:
I think we'd all have to first agree on what 'Brahman the universal soul' actually means, then check if the Jonangpas teach that, or differentiate what they teach from such a description. It's a question to put to them, as it's rather too complex for me to wrap my changeless, truly-existing, eternal Atman around.

krodha wrote:
Since the matrix-of-the-one gone-thus is empty of the two selves, it is not similar to the self of the forders [tirthikas], and because uncompounded noumena transcends the momentary, it is permanent, stable, and everlasting. It is not that it, like space, is without any of the qualities, powers, and aspects of a buddha, and it is not like the self of persons that the forders impute to be permanent. 
- Dolbupa


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 25th, 2017 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: The "Self" in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
srivijaya said:
The Jonangpas have an interesting take on it and quite a history to go with it.
For the Jonangpas, the emptiness of ultimate reality should not be characterized in the same way as the emptiness of apparent phenomena because it is prabhāsvara-saṃtāna, or "clear light mental continuum," endowed with limitless Buddha qualities. It is empty of all that is false, not empty of the limitless Buddha qualities that are its innate nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonang
In the Tibetan Jonang school, only the Buddha and the Buddha Nature are viewed as not intrinsically empty, but as truly real, unconditioned, and replete with eternal, changeless virtues. The Buddha Nature (tathagatagarbha) is only empty of what is impermanent and conditioned, not of its own self. The Buddha Nature is truly real, and primordially present in all beings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81#Jonang

krodha wrote:
This interpretation is strictly relegated to the Jonang, and their school was ostracized for some time because of it, almost nearly destroyed altogether.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 24th, 2017 at 2:27 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
dharmafootsteps said:
Is it appropriate to have images of the guardians and Guru Tragphur, Simhamukha on the shrine in my room, to assist with visualisation in thun practice?

krodha wrote:
Yes.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 24th, 2017 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: The "Self" in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
CT, there's quite a bit of discussion about  something called 'self' or 'bdag nyid' in "The Marvelous Primordial State", which I think you would find interesting. Here is Elio Guarisco's explanation of the term, from his discussion of the second chapter in his introduction to the book:

krodha wrote:
Either Esler has done a bit more research on the topic or Guarisco is ignoring the "contextual meaning" she refers to which "leaves no trace of doubt" regarding the synonymous nature of mahātman and anātman in this context.


dzogchungpa said:
Well, I don't really want to get entangled in a discussion about this, but as a point of information the term in question is 'bdag nyid'. 'bdag nyid chen po' is also used quite a bit and is translated there as "total self".

krodha wrote:
The suggested context means it is essentially synonymous with bdag nyid chen po.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 24th, 2017 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: The "Self" in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
CT, there's quite a bit of discussion about  something called 'self' or 'bdag nyid' in "The Marvelous Primordial State", which I think you would find interesting. Here is Elio Guarisco's explanation of the term, from his discussion of the second chapter in his introduction to the book: Thus, this word need not entangle the reader in concepts related to the Buddhist negation of self.

krodha wrote:
Either Esler has done a bit more research on the topic or Guarisco is ignoring the "contextual meaning" she refers to which "leaves no trace of doubt" regarding the synonymous nature of mahātman and anātman in this context.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 24th, 2017 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: The "Self" in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
CedarTree said:
Already like it, share more

krodha wrote:
Depending upon which system of Dzogpachenpo you are using there can be between seven and nine positions one can take in relation to the basis [gzhi]. Vairocana's view of choice was bdag nyid chen po, however that is only one facet of the basis and therefore grasping at that definition as an all encompassing view which speaks for the basis would be akin to the blind man grasping the elephants tail and proclaiming that the elephant is actually a rope. It is an incomplete view. Further, the only definitive view of the basis is held to be ka dag i.e. original purity, which is emptiness free from extremes. Ka dag as such therefore completely forbids any type of substantial self.

As stated by Dylan Esler on this issue, 'integral being' [bdag nyid chen po] is nothing more than the inseparable emptiness and clarity [stong gsal dbyer med] which is experienced upon recognizing the nature of mind [sems nyid] and does not refer to an eternal or "true" self of any kind. He states "The fact that it is explicitly described as being both empty and luminous excludes reification into a monolithic self."

The point of bdag nyid chen po is to illustrate that the nature of one's mind is not to be found elsewhere, that it is one's immediate condition, however it is the the wisdom which ensues from recognizing the non-arising of one's mind [skt. citta, tib. sems]. This term is therefore pointing to that nature, and only that nature which is completely empty and free from extremes.

Esler continues:
...the tantric and rDzogs-chen notion of integral being [skt. mahātman] should not be misconstrued to contradict the orthodox Buddhist insistence on selflessness [skt. anātman], simply because of the use of related words with different shades of meaning. As mentioned above, the terminology used is sufficiently precise to ward off misunderstanding, and that is to say nothing of the contextual meaning, which leaves no trace of doubt.
and:

It is precisely when egocentric apprehension, the mistaken moment-by-moment reification of a self [skt. ātman], falls aside that one can speak of integral being [skt. mahātman], without this notion contradicting more normative Buddhist ideas of selflessness [skt. anātman].


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: The "Self" in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
CedarTree said:
If I remember correctly I saw a quote where Malcolm spoke about there most definitely being a "Self" in Tibetan Buddhism.

krodha wrote:
Definitely not. The delusion of a self (and grasping to that delusion) is the root of samsara. You cannot be liberated if any delusion of self remains, no matter how subtle or grandiose.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 21st, 2017 at 1:30 PM
Title: Re: Dharma Wheel Heavy Weights
Content:
krodha wrote:
Any alleged Dzogchen or Vajrayāna practitioner who openly broadcasts their own practice, attainments etc., is someone who cannot be taken seriously, IMO.

Luckily people who talk about such things are few and far between. Seems most are with the program.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 17th, 2017 at 6:45 PM
Title: Re: Rabbit's Horns
Content:
Bristollad said:
There is as far as the Geluk presentation is concerned, as stated before there are four.  If they were not existents they would not be objects of knowledge and could not appear to the mind.

krodha wrote:
Unconditioned phenomena cannot be direct objects of knowledge (i.e., objects of mind), they do not appear to the mind.

Bristollad said:
Why do you say there are no unconditioned existents?  Does uncompounded space not exist?

krodha wrote:
An unconditioned existent is an oxymoron.

Uncompounded space is a metaphor for emptiness, are you asserting that emptiness exists?

Bristollad said:
P.s. The selfless is not an entity, it is simply the largest category we can talk about, because everything is selfless.

krodha wrote:
I'm still unsure as to why you are rendering "selfless" as a noun, as if it is some sort of freestanding thing.

Moreover, stating that selflessness is something capable of being subdivided into the categories of existence and non-existence is absurd.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 17th, 2017 at 3:58 PM
Title: Re: Rabbit's Horns
Content:
Bristollad said:
There is the selfless: divided into two, non-existents, and existents.

krodha wrote:
What is "the selfless"?

All phenomena are selfless because they lack an essential nature.

There is no entity called "the selfless" that is capable of being divided or remaining undivided.

Meditation on Emptiness p. 214 said:
A synonym of 'non-existent' is 'non-phenomenal non-product'.  Non-existents are non-products because they are not produced from an aggregation of causes and conditions; they are also non-phenomena because they do not exist, unlike phenomenal non-products, such as the permanent phenomenon space, which do exist.

An existent is selfless, or non-inherently existent; its non- inherent existence is an emptiness.  Synonyms of 'existent' are 'phenomenon', 'object', 'object of knowledge' and 'established base'.  Thus, everything that exists is a phenomenon (dharma), so translated because all dharmas are objects of knowledge and can appear to the mind, evenpermanent phenomena such as emptiness and space.

Bristollad said:
This pretty standard Geluk presentation of tenets.

krodha wrote:
I'm not a fan of Gelug tenets. But nevertheless, if you are asserting nirvana exists, you are saying it is a conditioned dharma.

There is no such thing as an unconditioned existent.

Nirvana is the total cessation of cause for the cyclical process of rebirth in the three realms. A cessation of affliction. I don't see how you propose to assert that a cessation of that nature is an existent entity.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 17th, 2017 at 11:15 AM
Title: Re: Rabbit's Horns
Content:
Bristollad said:
But cessations are existent phenomena...


krodha wrote:
A cessation is merely an absence of a cause, and absence of arising, etc., if cessations are existent then they are conditioned by definition. You just cited the two forms of cessation below as unconditioned dharmas, which they are, therefore they are not conditioned, and not existent.

Bristollad said:
The division of existents is into two: permanent (or static) phenomena and functioning things.

krodha wrote:
I think you mean the division of dharmas is in two: unconditioned and conditioned. Translating "dharma" as "an existent" is going to be problematic for various reasons.

Bristollad said:
Permanent phenomena are divided into four: space, analytical cessations, non-analytical cessations, and suchness

krodha wrote:
There are three forms of unconditioned dharmas, which are space and two forms of cessation. Sometimes emptiness (or suchness) is added.

Meditation on Emptiness, p.218 said:
Analytical cessations are final states of cessation of obstructions upon analysis of the nature of phenomena, which are such that those obstructions will never return.  They are enumerated as true cessations, the third of the four noble truths, in terms of the individual obstructions being abandoned on the levels of the paths....{...}...A nirvana is an analytical cessation that comes into existence upon the abandonment of the last affliction.  It is not the act of cessation or the act of passing beyond sorrow but a phenomena possessed in the continuum of a yogi that is the mere absence of the ceased afflictions.

krodha wrote:
At any rate, while cessations are indeed a form of unconditioned phenomena [dharma], they are not existent entities. Nirvana, being analytical cessation, is not an existent entity either.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 17th, 2017 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: Rabbit's Horns
Content:
krodha wrote:
Yes it would be correct to say it [nirvana] does not exist.

Grigoris said:
Not according to Madhyamaka.

krodha wrote:
Overall, nirvāṇa is a cessation and cessations are not existent entities, so I would argue the fact that nirvāṇa lacks existence goes without saying. Then there is also the undeniable point that only conditioned entities exist, and if you assert that nirvāṇa exists, you are by default stating it is conditioned, which contradicts the teachings given that we both know nirvāṇa is unconditioned. But to unpack this further for the purposes of discussion, here is Nāgārjuna offering insight into the position Madhyamaka takes on the matter:

This pair, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, does not exist.  
Thorough knowledge of saṃsāra is said to be nirvāṇa.

and Candrakīrti:

At the level of the unborn, there is no distinction of attaining nirvāṇa or not attaining nirvāṇa.  
The unborn nature itself is also not there, because there is no thing which is unborn.

Madhyamaka dialectics are quite clear that an unconditioned nature is not established at all due to the fact that the alleged ultimate nature, is truly nothing more than the non-arising of the so-called "relative", and therefore is nothing in and of itself. That is the meaning of the emptiness of essence [prakṛtisūnyatā] and naturelessness [niḥsvabhāva], which are synonymous principles that that Madhyamaka undoubtedly champions.

Again from Nāgārjuna:

Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established,   
the conditioned is not established;  
since the conditioned is never established,  
how can the unconditioned be established?

Candrakīrti again echoing these sentiments:

Since nirvāṇa is the supreme goal, it is the ultimate, beyond all suffering. This being empty of itself is the voidness of the ultimate. Indeed to counter the conviction that nirvāṇa is a real existent entity, the knower of the ultimate set forth the voidness of the ultimate.

The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra unpacks this principle of prakṛtisūnyatā a bit further:

People still say: "The five aggregates [skandha], the twelve bases of consciousness [āyatana] and the eighteen elements [dhātu] are all empty. Only suchness [tathatā], the fundamental element [dharmadhātu], the highest culminating point of the truth [bhūtakoṭi] are true essences [bhūtaprakṛti]." - In order to cut through this error, the Buddha simply replied "The five aggregates [skandha], but also suchness, the fundamental element and the culminating point of the truth are empty." This is called the emptiness of the essences [prakṛtisūnyatā].

And then the tantras and various adepts of Vajrayāna, along with Yogācāra texts such as the Saṃdhinirmocana are brutally explicit in their clarification that nirvāṇa (and an unconditioned nature in general) lacks existence. They truly leave no room for misinterpretation.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 17th, 2017 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Rabbit's Horns
Content:
Grigoris said:
It is not true for the unconditioned.

krodha wrote:
Do you mean to suggest there is an "unconditioned" that possesses some sort of existence?

Grigoris said:
Nirvana is unconditioned, right?  Would it be correct to say that it does not exist?

krodha wrote:
Yes it would be correct to say it does not exist.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 16th, 2017 at 6:44 PM
Title: Re: Rabbit's Horns
Content:
Aryjna said:
That is true for everything anyway...

Grigoris said:
It is not true for the unconditioned.

krodha wrote:
Do you mean to suggest there is an "unconditioned" that possesses some sort of existence?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 16th, 2017 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: Rabbit's Horns
Content:
krodha wrote:
Just as the horns on rabbits' heads,
Do not exist except in the imagination,
Phenomena are all precisely like that,
Merely imagined, having no existence.
- Dharmadhātustava


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 10th, 2017 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: Choosing Yogacara over Madhyamaka
Content:
krodha wrote:
The Hevajra tantra says one should employ Madhyamaka in the wake of learning about Yogācāra to ensure no misconceptions of substantialism form or remain.
Also worth noting, the implications of this (post Yogācāra application of Madhyamaka) is that Madhyamaka is capable of refining Yogācāra. Which means in terms of the hierarchical structure of sūtrayāna, the tantras are treating Yogācāra as a provisional view.

Better to synthesize both views, but in the end take Madhyamaka's non-affirming and non-reductive negation to be king. If you want an example of a proper Yogācāra-Madhyamaka synthesis, look to Dzogchen.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 10th, 2017 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: Choosing Yogacara over Madhyamaka
Content:
krodha wrote:
The Hevajra tantra says one should employ Madhyamaka in the wake of learning about Yogācāra to ensure no misconceptions of substantialism form or remain.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 9th, 2017 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: How to believe in rebirth
Content:
Wayfarer said:
But who can provide evidence of the existence of other realms and other life-bearing planets?  I am open to any evidence, but what evidence is there?

krodha wrote:
There are organisms that live in volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, that in and of itself demonstrates (i) that our notion of a proper "life bearing" climate is warped, and (ii) that the manifestation of life is so indiscriminately opportunistic that it will essentially appear everywhere and anywhere it can.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 3rd, 2017 at 9:34 AM
Title: Re: The concept of the teacher’s “blessings”
Content:
smcj said:
When a westerner can do the things I've seen Tibetans do then fine. Until then, stick to the undiluted source.

krodha wrote:
Tibetans are also exempt from misinterpretation and misassumptions?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, November 3rd, 2017 at 7:33 AM
Title: Re: The concept of the teacher’s “blessings”
Content:
smcj said:
If someone wants to practice he Vajrayana this subject is important to understand. Given the common misinterpretations made by westerners I suggest asking a lama from Tibet.

He will assume you understand the answer if he gives a brief explanation. Make sure you make your questions clear, otherwise misassumptions can still be perpetuated.

krodha wrote:
I take it you are exempt from these "western" misinterpretations and misassumptions?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 2nd, 2017 at 3:29 PM
Title: Re: The concept of the teacher’s “blessings”
Content:
smcj said:
Hold your teacher in high regard, but don't be naive or dumb about it. Obviously if they're out of pocket and start getting weird you should wise up and call a spade a spade.
That’s exactly not seeing your teacher as a Dharmakaya Buddha.

krodha wrote:
See your teacher as a dharmakāya Buddha when receiving teachings and transmissions. Like those teachings are coming directly from the nature of mind.

In other settings, if your teacher tries to lure you into a dark room in an attempt to diddle your pickle then exercise some keen discrimination.

Take advantage of your guru's realization and experience, but don't let said teacher take advantage of you.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 2nd, 2017 at 2:36 PM
Title: Re: The concept of the teacher’s “blessings”
Content:
smcj said:
Same idea, and not that radical.
How do you feel about DJKR’s FB post in response to Sogyal R’s abuses? In it he tried to explain how to see an admittedly imperfect teacher as Buddha and he got flamed for it. I almost got run out of town for trying to discuss it in the abstract (without defending Sogyal at all). I even changed my signature because people kept thinking I was defending Sogyal instead of having trying to have a non-referenced discussion. Then you post a quote that says viewing your teacher as a high level Bodhisattva isn’t good enough. Malcolm has recently posted that those kinds of Buddha’s aren’t even human by definition. And then you say that’s not radical?

Wow. You’ve got high standards.

krodha wrote:
I'm merely reporting how a teacher is traditionally viewed in Vajrayāna. All the extra shit, politics, scandals, etc., aren't really my interest.

Hold your teacher in high regard, but don't be naive or dumb about it. Obviously if they're out of pocket and start getting weird you should wise up and call a spade a spade.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 2nd, 2017 at 12:40 PM
Title: Re: The concept of the teacher’s “blessings”
Content:
smcj said:
That quote is saying that one should see ones personal teacher, that guy sitting there playing with his iPhone, as being on par with Guru Rinpoche, Milarepa, or even Sakyamuni.

You don’t find that radical? Have you checked out the DJKR thread?

krodha wrote:
The prajñāpāramitā warns not to view the tathāgata as rūpakāya, but rather understand the tathāgata is dharmakāya. Vajrayāna is saying view your guru as a tathāgata, also do not view your guru as rūpakāya, view them as dharmakāya.

Same idea, and not that radical.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 2nd, 2017 at 11:54 AM
Title: Re: The concept of the teacher’s “blessings”
Content:
Kroda said:
In Vajrayāna you are to view the guru as a Buddha, specifically a dharmakāya Buddha as Khenpo Ngachung states:

Seeing one’s teacher as an ordinary pandit, a sublime Arhat, a sublime Bodhisattva, a nirmanakaya Buddha, or even a sambhogakaya Buddha will not do: you have to see him as the dharmakaya Buddha.

smcj said:
Um, you do realize that is a very radical quotation that supports my position, right?

krodha wrote:
And why is that, smcj?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 2nd, 2017 at 11:45 AM
Title: Re: The concept of the teacher’s “blessings”
Content:
smcj said:
I disagree. Besides the quotes Astus just provided I'd like to quote Kalu R. from "Foundations of Tibetan Buddhism". Unfortunately I gave away my copy so I cannot give an exact quote. Perhaps someone else has a copy handy and can give correct my post. (It's from the first paragraph in the chapter devoted to Guru Yoga.) But basically he says that your general Mahayana teacher should be thought of and related to as you say, but in the Vajryana the guru is seen differently

krodha wrote:
The guru is "seen differently" because in Vajrayāna you are to view the guru as a Buddha, specifically a dharmakāya Buddha as Khenpo Ngachung states:

Seeing one’s teacher as an ordinary pandit, a sublime Arhat, a sublime Bodhisattva, a nirmanakaya Buddha, or even a sambhogakaya Buddha will not do: you have to see him as the dharmakaya Buddha.

Although the prajñāpāramitā also says a Buddha should be seen as dharmakāya. But does not say the teacher should be treated as a Buddha, to my knowledge.

Nevertheless, this does not carry the implications you are attempting to insinuate.

smcj said:
and you actually pray to him for blessings.

krodha wrote:
You supplicate, sure.

smcj said:
I do not think I am inappropriately importing this from Christianity. I think Malcolm and you are inappropriately excluding it because of your antipathy towards Christianity.

krodha wrote:
I do harbor a healthy disdain for Abrahamic monotheism, but that is not influencing my opinion in this regard.

smcj said:
I am expressing my opinion/understanding based on my relationships with my teachers and what I've read. People are free to disagree with me. Anyone that has questions about this I encourage them to seek out and ask an ethnically Tibetan lama about it. The anti-Christian prejudice that has been imported into Dharma by Westerners will just about guarantee that a western lama will give a different answer than someone raised in a culturally Tibetan environment. It's not racist statement. It's a cultural statement.

krodha wrote:
The added disclaimer at the end is a bit telling.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 2nd, 2017 at 10:54 AM
Title: Re: The concept of the teacher’s “blessings”
Content:
Astus said:
" Our capacity to receive the compassion and blessings of the teacher and the Three Jewels, therefore, depends entirely on devotion and faith.
Once, a disciple called out to the master Jowo Atisa, "Jowo, give me your blessing!"
"Lax disciple," Atisa replied, "give me your devotion ... "
So absolute unwavering trust, arising from extraordinary faith and devotion, is indispensable. It opens the door to taking refuge."
(Patrul rinpoche: Words of My Perfect Teacher, p 176)

krodha wrote:
The question is whether "devotion" and "faith" in this context mean what you think they mean. You are projecting Christian-like characteristics onto these descriptions when I personally think "faith" and "devotion" simply mean genuine trust, interest, commitment, etc.

Essentially that if the buddhadharma and the teaching transmitted (along with the relationship with the teacher) are to have any actual potential one must be serious and have integrity. You won't have success unless you are devoted and have faith in the teacher and the teachings.

But this doesn't mean some sort of bhākti like blessing-devotion and religious faith, like faith in a higher power etc., are involved.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 2nd, 2017 at 10:04 AM
Title: Re: enlightment in one life
Content:
krodha wrote:
There is no "primordial enlightenment."

There is only primordial purity.

Enlightenment [awakening] is an event that occurs when that primordial purity is recognized.

Malcolm said:
The distinction is basically this: in cittamatra, phenomena are mental events. The way Lonchenpa explains it is like this. Bodhicitta, awakened mind, is like space, it is the basis, but it is not established in anyway. Its potential or energy [rtsal] arises like the face of a mirror. The display of that potentiality is like the eight examples of illusion. Since the basis, its potential and display are not themselves established because they are all empty, they are nondual. These three are conventionally distinguished because of appearances. Thus, bodhicitta, potentiality and the display are neither single nor plural in terms of their essence, nevertheless, just like the reflections in the mirror cannot be said to be either the same nor different than the mirror's power to reflect, it is understood that the imputations which are the display of the potential of bodhicitta also do not exist either inside or outside of, and hence these appearances are called "nonexistent, clear appearances." Indeed, nothing at all is established in anyway.

smcj said:
(formatting mine)

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=21104&p=311719#p311719

krodha wrote:
What of it? Bodhicitta is the basis. Which means it is the basis for the path, i.e., it must be recognized in order to practice the authentic path.

Bodhicitta in this context means the nature of mind. Which is again, originally pure and naturally perfected.

Awakening or enlightenment occurs when that nature is recognized.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 2nd, 2017 at 9:58 AM
Title: Re: The concept of the teacher’s “blessings”
Content:
krodha wrote:
Malcolm wrote before:

Byin rlabs [blessing] means quite literally "conferral [rlabs] of power [byin]."

Byin is defined in Tibetan as "the ability or power to transform the minds and vision/appearances of another."  

The word Byin rlabs is defined in Tibetan as "the power to remain in any subject of the Dharma of the Noble Path."

Loppön La elaborates further:

"Blessing" here just means the power of one person to inspire another to follow the path in some way. That's all. There is no Dharma called "blessing", no magical force called "blessing". If there was, the Buddha, being compassionate, would have blessed us all into nirvana long ago.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 2nd, 2017 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: enlightment in one life
Content:
krodha wrote:
And then buddhahood is what occurs when one's enlightenment [awakening] is ripened to its fullest extent via a complete exhaustion of afflictive and adventitious obscurations.

Therefore the title of this thread should really be "buddhahood in one life" since enlightenment [awakening] in one life is simply entering the path of seeing.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 2nd, 2017 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: enlightment in one life
Content:
krodha wrote:
There is no "primordial enlightenment."

There is only primordial purity.

Enlightenment [awakening] is an event that occurs when that primordial purity is recognized.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 2nd, 2017 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: enlightment in one life
Content:
florin said:
Kunjed Gyalpo collection speaks extensively about how the universe is already enlightened and how there is nothing outside of it.
You are obviously not familiar with this group of tantras.

krodha wrote:
The appearances that allegedly constitute the universe are originally pure and naturally perfected, but it would be incorrect to say the universe is itself enlightened. Especially given that the universe is a false imputation and a cognitive error.

And although the appearances that allegedly constitute the universe are originally pure and naturally perfected, so-called enlightenment or awakening [bodhi] does not occur until the nature of those appearances are recognized.

Enlightenment or awakening occurs in the mind, and not elsewhere.

The view that anything is already enlightened is expressly rejected in Dzogchen.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 8th, 2017 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: L ron gardner
Content:
krodha wrote:
His ignorance is astounding.

The subject of the most recent post he authored was a claim that Longchenpa promulgates the same transcendent "I" as Ramana Maharshi. His evidence was a brief section of Longchenpa's Dharmadhātu-ratna-kośa-nāma-vṛtti where he references an excerpt of the Kulayarāja tantra which explains the use of the first person singular pronoun "I" as a literary device that signifies the personified nature of mind, because the rhetorical style of the tantra is direct as opposed to indirect like Śravāka suttas and Mahāyāna sūtras.

The intention of the text is glaringly clear if you take the context into account, in that it is explaining the literary style employed in these texts and how it should be approached and understood (in order to avoid misconstruing the verbiage).

But of course in L Ron's "expert" opinion this is a literal proclamation that is suggesting there is an actual transcendent "I"... and your true nature is this universal, substantial identity, just as the Hindu dharmas teach.

The alleged credibility of the entire argument requires fixating on a single sentence and quite literally separating said sentence from all context and other sentences surrounding it. The level of willed ignorance and crafted cherry picking involved is staggering.

It's really quite insane. This is one of numerous examples of sloppy, biased, lazy, uneducated and willful ignorance exhibited by L Ron Gardner.

If anyone has a morbid curiosity and wants to witness this slow moving train wreck in action it is happening in a Facebook group called "Dharma Connection."


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 7th, 2017 at 4:50 AM
Title: Re: L ron gardner
Content:
M.G. said:
I actually have no problem with someone claiming a personal understanding of Dzogchen which differs from how it’s normally taught (although how seriously they’ll be taken without serious scholarly and yogic credentials is an interesting question) or for that matter, disagreeing with the Dzogchen teachings, so long as such disagreement is expressed honestly and without rancor.

That said, this guy’s an obvious buffoon.

krodha wrote:
When these "personal understandings" differ from the traditional view it is usually because they haven't had a genuine recognition of the nature of mind, and as a result they mistake coarse non-dual states, formless absorptions etc., which all pertain to the afflicted ālaya, as the authentic knowledge of their nature. Which it isn't.

What results is this type quasi-Buddhist crypto-Advaita that L Ron Gardner is promulgating.

Honestly though I think even that is giving him too much credit... in my opinion he is just an intellectual who reads books in English and spots words that are similar across various traditions and just assumes they all are discussing the same thing.

I'm sure he's received teachings from so-and-so guru like Adi Da Samraj, and has had some meditative experiences, but it doesn't appear to go any deeper than that.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 7th, 2017 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: L ron gardner
Content:
krodha wrote:
This Facebook quote was the best one though:
I say I have "cracked the code" and understand Dharma, including Buddhadharma and Dzogchen, on a level above anyone else writing on this stuff.
-- L Ron Gardner

Like Cone said: you can't make this up!


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 4th, 2017 at 1:10 PM
Title: Re: Soul fragmentation and defragmentation as Buddism teaching?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Perhaps "grew into it like a weed" is better.

Fortyeightvows said:
Sounds a bit disparaging.

krodha wrote:
Death to false dharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 4th, 2017 at 12:49 PM
Title: Re: Why Secular Buddhism is Not True
Content:
boda said:
Which bin does this belong to?


krodha wrote:
The Dalai Lama also says the truths of the buddhadharma are inaccessible to materialist science.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 4th, 2017 at 12:21 PM
Title: Re: Soul fragmentation and defragmentation as Buddism teaching?
Content:
Adamantine said:
So then this must be something that's crept into Chinese Buddhism
from Taoism?


dzogchungpa said:
Well, "crept into" sounds kind of melodramatic.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps "grew into it like a weed" is better.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 23rd, 2017 at 1:45 AM
Title: Re: dalai lama conflict science buddhism change
Content:
krodha wrote:
The Dalai Lama also said:

Buddhism draws the critical division differently— i.e., between sentience and non-sentience— because it is primarily interested in the alleviation of suffering and the quest for happiness. In Buddhism, the evolution of the cosmos and the emergence of the sentient beings within it— indeed, effectively everything within the purview of the physical and life sciences— belong within the domain of the first of the Four Noble Truths, which the Buddha taught in his initial sermon. The Four Noble Truths state that within the realm of impermanent phenomena there is suffering, suffering has an origin, the cessation of suffering is possible, and there is a path to the cessation of suffering. As I see it, science falls within the scope of the first truth in that it examines the material bases of suffering, for it covers the entire spectrum of the physical environment—“ the container”— as well as the sentient beings—“ the contained.” It is in the mental realm— the realm of psychology, consciousness, the afflictions, and karma— that we find the second of the truths, the origin of suffering. The third and fourth truths, cessation and the path, are effectively outside the domain of scientific analysis in that they pertain primarily to what might be called philosophy and religion.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 16th, 2017 at 6:32 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life Transmission Webcast: 09/15/17
Content:
chimechodra said:
The page currently says "Waiting for event to go live." I'm assuming it's the same for everyone else? Or am I at the wrong place? Either way, happy that this was organized

krodha wrote:
Same for me, they took a half hour break. Will fire up again shortly with brief talk from Malcolm then lung.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 14th, 2017 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: Illuminating Quotes by Malcolm Namdrol-la
Content:
Malcolm said:
The term "ultimate reality" does not exist in Buddhist texts. This is a very misleading English gloss. The terms we have for an "ultimate" are 1) ultimate truth, i.e, paramārtha or don dam, which means "ultimate meaning" or "ultimate sense"; suchness, i.e. tatāta or de bzhin nyid; dharmatā or chos nyid refer to the ultimate essence of relative phenomena. Indeed, these terms, and others like them, are all pointing out something definitive about relative phenomena or beings.

There are terms in Buddhism that mean "reality," like gnas lugs, bhutatā, but there is no need to add the adjective "ultimate" to such terms because what is real is real. There is no relative reality as opposed to an ultimate reality. The first would be contradiction in terms, since the relative is not real, not constant, not unchanging, etc. The second is redundant since the real is constant, unchanging, etc.

There is no separate unmanifest reality which stands apart from manifest phenomena. This "nonarising" you seek is precisely the nonarising nature of dependently originated phenomena, their emptiness of arising, ceasing, and abiding.

Emptiness is the quality of things that allows them to undergo change and transformation.

Nonarising, aka, emptiness is ultimate truth and reality. Emptiness and nonarising are ultimate truths, veridical cognitions arrived at through an analysis of dependently originated phenomena. Emptiness and non-arising are real because they withstand analysis, i.e., they are the result that one finds upon analysis, they are the content of āryan cognition in equipoise.

But emptiness and nonarising are not ultimate realities because if they were, there would be nothing other than a blank void.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 14th, 2017 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Illuminating Quotes by Malcolm Namdrol-la
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, of course [the Bhagavad Gita proposes a freedom from the cycle of birth and death], all Indian schools who propose liberation propose that liberation means freedom from the cycles of birth and death.

Buddha disagreed with all of these schools completely, and taught it was only through adopting right view, i.e., the four truths of nobles, that one could attain freedom from the cycle of birth and death.

He taught that they mistook various types of mental states for liberation, mental states which in some cases last millions and millions of years.

The Bhgavada Gita for example, is an example of an eternalist scripture, and it proposes the best way to achieve liberation is through pure devotion to Krishna as embodiment of Godhead, though it lists other paths as well.

Saṃkhya is described as an incorrect view because it proposes that causes and effects are merely transformations of one substance. Yoga also suffers from this view.

Jainism is clearly refuted by the Buddha. This is a no brainer. The Buddha thought that Mahathera was a complete fool.

Nyaya and Vaishesika did not exist during the time of the Buddha, but their eternalist atomism was soundly negated by later Buddhist scholars such as Bhavaviveka and so on.

The Mimamsas do not believe in liberation at all, but rather believe in appeasing the gods through rites in order to assure mundane good fortune.

Advaita also did not exist by name during the time of the Buddha, but it is refuted for proposing that all reality is ultimately one undifferentiated consciousness.

When one reads the sūtras and tantras taught by the Buddha, one can see very clearly that all these schools are refuted either directly or indirectly as wrong views.

Wrong view cannot be lead to liberation.

There is only one right view, and that is the view of dependent origination.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 12th, 2017 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Content:
Aryjna said:
It sounds quite strange, but I suppose not every Theravadin holds that view.

krodha wrote:
Not all of them, but this view is gaining strength in online circles.

Aryjna said:
Perhaps to some extent it is a view that was developed to contradict Mahayana?

krodha wrote:
Perhaps, but I think it's more likely that some Theravadins simply place great importance on following the recorded teachings of the historical Buddha very strictly and literally.

In their eyes "buddhavacana" is the words of a historical figure. For us Mahāyānis, buddhavacana takes on a more liberal meaning, due to the fact it is ultimately considered wrong view to identify the tathāgata as name and form.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 12th, 2017 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Content:
krodha wrote:
The aforementioned trend of indeterminacy in regards to selflessness [anātman] is strange given that the entire purpose of the skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas is to provide a model that demonstrates a lack of an enduring, core essence [svabhāva], which would be required for a self.

But alas, some people need to be spoon fed.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 12th, 2017 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Content:


Aryjna said:
Isn't that contradictory to the basics of buddhism, how can anyone say that the buddha did not answer whether there is a self or not.

krodha wrote:
There is one instance in a sutta where the Buddha is asked directly whether there is a self or not and he remains silent because he knows the particular disciple he is addressing would only be further confused by an answer.

There is another instance where the view "I have no self" is deemed wrong view, however this is obviously addressing the possibility of leaving selflessness as a mere intellectual position.

These individuals also state that the term "anātman" translates to "not self" rather than "selflessness", "lack of self", "no self", etc., and they use this view of "not self" to promote the possibility that the Buddha underhandedly endorsed some sort of self via omission. Like apophatic theology where something ineffable is described through negating what it is not, rather than affirming what it indeed is. They say the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus are "not self", ergo the possibility that there is a self elsewhere is very legitimate.

Somehow these examples have been misinterpreted as "the Buddha never teaching a lack of self", and as a result we see many practitioners lost in this indeterminate no-mans-land where they even sometimes actively reject the idea of selflessness.

Aryjna said:
Thanks, do you know which sutra is the one where he remains silent?

krodha wrote:
The Ananda Sutta

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 12th, 2017 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Content:
krodha wrote:
There is one instance in a sutta where the Buddha is asked directly whether there is a self or not and he remains silent because he knows the particular disciple he is addressing would only be further confused by an answer.

Somehow these examples have been misinterpreted as "the Buddha never teaching a lack of self", and as a result we see many practitioners lost in this indeterminate no-mans-land where they even sometimes actively reject the idea of selflessness.

Losal Samten said:
Do you know if these "Unanswered Questions" as they're put are the textual basis for the historical Pudgalavadins, or just the basis for this modern pudgalavada as it were?

krodha wrote:
I'm actually not sure but I assume there must be some research out there which identifies the source(s) of the Pudgalavādin's view.

Some of these "modern Pudgalavādins", as you put it, are advocating for Ātmavāda.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 12th, 2017 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Behoves us all to remember that when the Buddha was asked 'does the self exist, or not' that he didn't answer.

krodha wrote:
This is a strange narrative some Theravadins founded that has now seeped into many corners of the internet. Has led to much indeterminate confusion.

Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu Is at the root of it as far as I can tell.

Aryjna said:
Isn't that contradictory to the basics of buddhism, how can anyone say that the buddha did not answer whether there is a self or not.

krodha wrote:
There is one instance in a sutta where the Buddha is asked directly whether there is a self or not and he remains silent because he knows the particular disciple he is addressing would only be further confused by an answer.

There is another instance where the view "I have no self" is deemed wrong view, however this is obviously addressing the possibility of leaving selflessness as a mere intellectual position.

These individuals also state that the term "anātman" translates to "not self" rather than "selflessness", "lack of self", "no self", etc., and they use this view of "not self" to promote the possibility that the Buddha underhandedly endorsed some sort of self via omission. Like apophatic theology where something ineffable is described through negating what it is not, rather than affirming what it indeed is. They say the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus are "not self", ergo the possibility that there is a self elsewhere is very legitimate.

Somehow these examples have been misinterpreted as "the Buddha never teaching a lack of self", and as a result we see many practitioners lost in this indeterminate no-mans-land where they even sometimes actively reject the idea of selflessness.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 12th, 2017 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Behoves us all to remember that when the Buddha was asked 'does the self exist, or not' that he didn't answer.

krodha wrote:
This is a strange narrative some Theravadins founded that has now seeped into many corners of the internet. Has led to much indeterminate confusion.

Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu Is at the root of it as far as I can tell.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 11th, 2017 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Tögal for dzogchen beginners?
Content:


Bubbles said:
Am I missing something?  Is webcast worldwide transmission on guru yoga sufficient to start the Togal practice on our own?  Thanks.

Malcolm said:
Yes. You are missing a teacher who can guide you. No, WWT is not sufficient.

Bubbles said:
Hi Malcolm,

How closely can these top teachers work with individual students?  From my experience, there's not much one-on-one guidance offered by top teachers; because they're so sought after.  I could be wrong.  Anyway, regarding ChNN, I haven't found any specific in-person courses/retreat given on Trekcho and Thogal.  So, do these Rinpoches offer personal guidance after they get to know the students, informally, not necessarily in class settings; maybe because the experiences are esoteric?  Again, if anyone has a URL link to any course they have found, I'd really appreciate it.

Thank you.
Bubbles

krodha wrote:
Last time ChNN taught daytime thögal was maybe three years ago, he does it in person so you have to travel to him, there's no teaching available online.

Rinpoche technically teaches tregchö all the time, but teaches tregchö proper ala four chözhags only every now and then.

Best to be patient, save some money for travel and keep checking the schedule.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 9th, 2017 at 7:34 AM
Title: Re: Buddha nature vs Soul
Content:
smcj said:
Of course the alayavijnana, the 8th consciousness which goes from life to life, has bee accused of being akin to a soul.

krodha wrote:
You really like souls and Jesus.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 8th, 2017 at 1:31 PM
Title: Re: Thodgal
Content:
Bubbles said:
Dear Friends

I would like to learn Thodgal.  I read there are gazing visual and breathing exercises.  Which are best books to get instruction?  Are there illustrations for the exercises?

Thank you

Kathy

krodha wrote:
It is important to receive instructions on thögal from a living teacher. Really any and everything under the Dzogchen and Vajrayāna umbrella must be learned from a teacher, instructions in a book will not suffice.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 6th, 2017 at 3:00 PM
Title: Re: ChNN on Jesus?
Content:
smcj said:
Via Dzogchungpa's signature: Through Dzogchen we can really understand what God is and we don’t have to worry if there is a God or not. God always exists as our real nature, the base, for everybody.
Chögyal Namkhai Norbu
Well, either he is disingenuous, ill informed, or open minded. Given how open minded he is in general, I think that's the answer. Maybe open mindedness has something to do with his Dzogchen practice.

Like I said before, his teachings are the ultimate Refuge for those that are attached to their anti-Christian, anti-religious attitudes, yet he isn't supporting their negativity. So people either have to open their minds and let go of their negative attachments, or else they have to rationalize what he says away.

Tough choice.

krodha wrote:
It's completely irrelevant and has no bearing on anything when it comes down to it.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 6th, 2017 at 12:02 PM
Title: Re: ChNN on Jesus?
Content:
climb-up said:
Again, I am truly sorry if I am coming across as angry or upset.

dzogchungpa said:
this You aren't coming across as angry or upset at all.

krodha wrote:
I caught some hints of salt.

dzogchungpa said:
The learned and accomplished "Dzogchenpas" of DW get kind of agitated when anyone disagrees with Malcolm and often engage in projection as a coping mechanism.

krodha wrote:
And more salt.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 6th, 2017 at 9:36 AM
Title: Re: ChNN on Jesus?
Content:
climb-up said:
Oh man, you beat me to it.
As I opened up my browser I was thinking of all the wonderful lessons I have learned through this discussion, such as the above and:

When other religions say that they are the only way, they are wrong/misguided/fundamentalist/rigid   ...but Buddhism is the only way.

krodha wrote:
This list is misrepresenting the intentions of the points you are addressing, but then again you've been taking this entire thread very personally since the beginning.

The buddhadharma is "the only way" to actualize liberation as defined in the buddhadharma. If you want liberation as defined in the sanatanadharma or some other tirthika system, you must practice those dharmas. You will not actualize liberation as defined in the buddhadharma through practicing Samkhya yoga, for example. That is the context in which the buddhadharma is "the only way."

climb-up said:
Buddhas are beyond all limitations, but are only Buddhas if they act and are recognized in certain ways

krodha wrote:
Buddhas are free from limitations because they have completely exhausted all affliction.

This does not mean any saint or sage is a Buddha.

climb-up said:
on the path the Buddhahood beyond limitations, there are very strict limitations on what is appropriate to be interested in

krodha wrote:
Be interested in whatever you like. But it is important to know what should be adopted and abandoned on the path. Right view is crucial.

climb-up said:
While your teacher is more important than the Buddha, if they say something that contradicts your view it should be immediately dismissed as a clearly disingenuous ploy to appease their many followers.

krodha wrote:
In some contexts, as was clarified when this came up.

climb-up said:
Anyone disagreeing, or even questioning or wondering, clearly has wrong view.

krodha wrote:
Wrong view is wrong view as defined in the sūtras and tantras. If your view aligns with the definition of wrong view that is provided as a guideline in these teachings, then yes, it is considered wrong view, meaning it is not conducive to awakening and the path in general.

climb-up said:
If some of these people are respected teachers either conveniently ignore that, or see above.

krodha wrote:
Respect is earned through diplomacy, not tyranny. An egalitarian approach to religion is a beneficial attitude to adopt for any prominent teacher, especially if they want to introduce people to the buddhadharma.

climb-up said:
It's been pretty amazing.

krodha wrote:
It seems this discussion has gotten under your skin. It's okay to like Jesus, but you should be strong in your affinity and conviction... and not let the opinions of others affect you so much.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 6th, 2017 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: ChNN on Jesus?
Content:
climb-up said:
Like I said earlier in this long, meandering thread; I have no problem at all with people who are not christian, or don't think Jesus was enlightened (or don't think Jesus ever existed!), but so many blanket statements about Christianity, or Buddhism, or Buddhist teachers, or any topic of depth, simply don't apply across the board and it surprises me how quick people are to universalize their understandings.

krodha wrote:
Said people may level the same criticism in your direction. Which is to say you may be selling others short when it comes to the reasoning behind their positions on the matter.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 6th, 2017 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: ChNN on Jesus?
Content:
climb-up said:
By calling worldly beings enlightened, this encouraging wrong-view and rebirth in samsara, possibly even the lower realms!!!??? (I'm not saying your saying this, but this is the logical conclusion based on some posts here).

krodha wrote:
Following tirthika teachers and dharmas will not lead to liberation as defined in the buddhadharma.

climb-up said:
Also, being similarly smart-assed & sarcastic, are you saying that if my teacher says something that disagrees with my own userstanding I should assume that he is just saying that publicly and doesn't really mean it!?

krodha wrote:
Depends on the context. In some contexts it is quite likely.

When you are a public figure with a large following, especially in Buddhist circles, and especially dealing with westerners who were likely raised with some sort of connection to an Abrahamic monotheistic religion, it is probably not a good idea to demean that religion.

In a teaching position where you want people to feel comfortable following you it is better to compare and contrast constructively with an overall attitude of acceptance.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 6th, 2017 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: ChNN on Jesus?
Content:
climb-up said:
I have the same suggestion for you that I have for everyone else suggesting that to entertain the idea that Jesus is enlightened, or even a Bodhisattva, has no understanding of Buddhism:
Contact the Dalai Lama and ChNN, maybe Tich Naht Hahn while you're at it (not totally sure of his view), and explain there total ignorance of Buddhism.
Once you have done that let me know how it went and how you put them in their place.

krodha wrote:
They are popular teachers and public figures who want to attract people to the dharma, not deter them, they are merely being diplomatic when they make comparisons of this nature.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 6th, 2017 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: ChNN on Jesus?
Content:
climb-up said:
I'm pretty sure that I typed nothing that would imply that at all. If that's true I can only assume you being disingenuous and argumentative.

dzogchungpa said:
Don't forget passive-aggressive.

krodha wrote:
Calling the kettle black.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 30th, 2017 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Anonymous X said:
BUDDHAHOOD IS NOT ATTAINED BY PURPOSEFUL ACTION

If secret rigpa, the actual buddha-dynamic, eludes us, to attain release by any purposeful action is no option. “Everything is impermanent and bound to perish”— how can a tight mesh of body, speech, and mind reach out to touch its indestructible core? In the event of failure to intuit intrinsic rigpa, which is pure being there is no chance that we can attain release in this lifetime by any deliberate physical, verbal, or mental act. Religious practice becomes a tense constraining mesh constricting and veiling rigpa, and although some small satisfaction may follow, the product is conditioned and thus certain to fade away, perishing like an earthen pot. Such practice can never attain to the indestructible reality of pure being. Whatever is deliberately created is conditioned and transient, whereas its opposite, the uncreated, is imperishable. Since it is indestructible, pure being can only be seen by nondeliberate, unintended relaxation into the natural state; goal-oriented action is a mesh of constraint leading us closer to buddhahood by not so much as a hair’s breadth. Such ambition may well be regarded as a futile samsaric trap.

Longchenpa's words seem pretty clear to me.

krodha wrote:
When Longchenpa states:

In the event of failure to intuit intrinsic rigpa, which is pure being there is no chance that we can attain release in this lifetime by any deliberate physical, verbal, or mental act.

He means that in the context of Dzogchen, one's nature must be initially recognized, and without that recognition (and the knowledge that ensues from that recognition), there is no way that insight can be produced through "goal-oriented action." Attempting to produce that wisdom through deliberate action in the absence of genuine recognition and knowledge will only further obscure that wisdom. This statement is the same as the following found in the Kun tu bzang po che ba la rang gnas pa:

Meditation is not foremost, realization [recognition] is foremost; If realization is not entered with confidence, the meditator is merely meditating on a conceptual state, the seeker is seeking with an afflicted clinging.

This is a fundamental theme through all Dzogchen teachings, which are based on direct introduction and recognition. That is all Longchenpa is attempting to communicate.

Context is everything when it comes to Longchenpa's teaching and Dzogchen in general. That context becomes lost on many, and they err into nihilism as a result (which Longchenpa also warns against). This is why a relationship with a qualified teacher is indispensable.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 28th, 2017 at 6:34 PM
Title: Re: Kim Katami (Pema Rinpoche, the terton) dangerous?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Avoid him at all costs.

He used to post here as "Kim" I believe. It is absurd to think that he is now parading himself as a Rinpoche. Very sad. Many will be led down a wrong path due to his repugnant recklessness.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 28th, 2017 at 3:01 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Anonymous X said:
Once again, Krodha, thank you for the lengthy reply. I understand what the teachings say in your particular path. I understand that you choose to follow this and a lot of it makes sense to me, up to a certain point.

krodha wrote:
What I am describing is arguably the nature of every path.

Anonymous X said:
My own experience confirms much of what you are saying, 'up to a certain point'. But, if I may be so bold or blunt or even stupid to say that all of it is not about the 'way things are'. It is all a subjective narrative culturally induced in us through contact with religions, philosophy, and our own fabrications about things we can never 'know' with our ordinary minds.

krodha wrote:
It is not a mere narrative, it is the nature of the path. If you have recognized your nature then you know this is how the experience unfolds in that context.

Anonymous X said:
In the words of my own teacher, in one instant, you and everything you've known are dissolved.

krodha wrote:
That is the beginning of the path, you awaken, glimpse that nature which then falls away and you return to your everyday relative condition. The point is then to create conditions that are conducive to revisiting that insight, and repeat.

Anonymous X said:
What is left is a totality without a center, with no way of feeling separate ever again from life. No referents, no teaching, no knower, no attainer.

krodha wrote:
That is great but doesn't mean shit if your knowledge of that nature is unstable.

Anonymous X said:
To me, that is real equipoise with no one who says 'this is equipoise'. But this is something that is not possible to be talked about, IMO.

krodha wrote:
We talk about it all day here, and the sūtras, śastras, tantras all discuss it at length.

When the teachings say your nature is ineffable, they simply mean the words are not the experience, much like the word "sweet" is not the actual taste of sugar. Yet we can still describe sugar as "sweet" and you know what that means, and you know it is incorrect to describe it as "salty."

Even Zen warns against such attitudes:

Since they maintain they have no need of written words, they should not speak either, because written words are merely the marks of spoken language. They also maintain that the direct way cannot be established by written words, and yet these two words, "not established" are themselves written.

When they hear others speaking, they slander them by saying that they are attached to written words. You should know that to be confused as they are may be permissible, but to slander the Buddha’s Sutras is not. Do not slander the Sutras for if you do, your offense will create countless obstacles for you.
- Huineng

Not saying you are slandering the teachings, but you're guilty of the rest.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 28th, 2017 at 9:30 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Anonymous X said:
Krodha,

Thanks for taking the time to explain all this. I can say that it seems my own experience approaches what you are describing though I wouldn't use the same terms as you do. I also would not equate myself with the Buddha as I have no way of knowing what his state was.

krodha wrote:
No one suggested equating yourself with a Buddha, but if you've ever known equipoise there is no doubt that it is what every buddha, ārya, etc., are intending to introduce and attempting to communicate.

Anonymous X said:
still would not use this word equipoise as it creates the idea of a subjective state to be 'achieved' and 'desired'.

krodha wrote:
Yes, wisdom is to be achieved, one does not possess it on the outset, as Longchenpa states:

The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is a wisdom to be attained.

Anonymous X said:
A span of time must be a referent if it fluctuates.

krodha wrote:
Periods of equipoise fluctuate due to the presence of afflictive conditioning and habitual tendencies which make instances of awakening unstable. This is why initial awakening is generally brief and fleeting, it is quickly consumed again by karmic conditioning. The very meaning of the path is continually returning to equipoise so that prajñā exhausts affliction and periods of equipoise extend longer and longer until one no longer regresses, as Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche explains here:

The glimpse of recognizing mind-essence [sems nyid] that in the beginning lasted only for a few seconds gradually becomes half a minute, then a minute, then half an hour, then hours, until eventually it is uninterrupted throughout the whole day. You need that kind of training.

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche stops at "throughout the whole day" in his example, but the intention is actually to make that knowledge constant, so that it even permeates sleep.

Anonymous X said:
I do get the feeling that you are pointing to 'something' that you can know or exists that is not part of what appears as 'conventional truth'. Perhaps a state of mind that many meditators strive to experience.


krodha wrote:
Equipoise is not a mind state. It is resting in a direct, experiential knowledge of the nature of mind.

Per Candrakīrti, relative and ultimate truth are in essence, different species of cognition, the former afflicted and the latter unafflicted. Both "truths" are correct and incorrect knowledge of the same appearances, like mistaking a rope in a dark room to be a snake.

Anonymous X said:
I get caught up in that myself at times and have to be mindful of engaging in that kind of thinking. Can you relate to that?

krodha wrote:
I cannot relate to that.

Anonymous X said:
Equipoise and being awakened to the way things are seem to be not the same. Equipoise still seems to be a result, an effect, a state. If vidya/jnana, which is the cessation of ignorance, and supposedly that realization of Buddha, were effected in equipoise, one instant of it would end all circular thinking which it does not as we can see in our own lives.

krodha wrote:
The nature of mind is not affected by anything, it is simply obscured, much like the sun is not affected by cloud cover.

Anonymous X said:
Further, what you are adhering to seems to be the old schism of 'gradual' vs 'sudden'. You are talking of a path and suggesting stages.

krodha wrote:
Awakening is always sudden, the removal of obscurations is always gradual (except in exceedingly rare cases), and our nature is neither sudden nor gradual.

Anonymous X said:
This is an area that always gets sticky, don't you think? I don't want to go down that route. Much too much complication there.

krodha wrote:
It isn't complicated if understood correctly.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 27th, 2017 at 3:11 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Anonymous X said:
maybe...... How can we be sure we are talking about the very same thing and describing it in the very same way? I didn't have any objection to your description.

krodha wrote:
It isn't that difficult to ascertain whether we are discussing the same thing in this instance, and my point is if we are, then that is not authentic equipoise.

Anonymous X said:
Why is equipoise brought up here?

krodha wrote:
Equipoise is brought up because unless one is resting in equipoise, one cannot truly claim to be abandoning [or exhausting] views (the theme of our previous interaction in this thread).

Equipoise is the state of all āryas and buddhas. We as sentient beings, on the path, fluctuate between equipoise and post-equipoise because we have not completely uprooted our affliction, as described by Jigme Lingpa here:

Vidyā as it is explained on the path is still accompanied by impure influences of subtle energy and mind, leading to the distorted states of ordinary mind [sems] and mental events. Because one's recognition of vidyā is thus contaminated and burdened, one can truly rest in vidyā only from time to time.

In the latter part of the last sentence: "...one can truly rest in vidyā only from time to time." the term "vidyā" can be substituted with "equipoise."

Buddhas, having eradicated all contamination, no longer fluctuate between equipoise and post-equipoise but rather have merged these two "states."

Anonymous X said:
Is this not a subjective dharma which is also a referent?

krodha wrote:
Equipoise is a term used to denote a period of time when the mind rests in a direct knowledge of dharmatā. Therefore equipoise is not a referent, but instead is a span of time when referents are no longer perceived.

Anonymous X said:
What/who is the knower of this?

krodha wrote:
The knower is the mind, which is expressed as jñāna, or we can say vidyā is the knower. Or we can simply say the knower is you, or he, she, they, him, her, etc., as the buddhadharma has no qualms with conventional designations. Either way, a period of equipoise occurs when the mind is awakened to the way things actually are.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 27th, 2017 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
krodha wrote:
Right, you are describing a neutral and indifferent state of attention where thought is not being engaged with but rather simply observed.
Amirite?

Anonymous X said:
maybe...... How can we be sure we are talking about the very same thing and describing it in the very same way? I didn't have any objection to your description.

krodha wrote:
It isn't that difficult to ascertain whether we are discussing the same thing in this instance, and my point is if we are, then that is not authentic equipoise.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 26th, 2017 at 4:07 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Anonymous X said:
Krodha,
The letting go of views happens when the referents are understood to have no basis, no true existent self. It is not let go of in order to accomplish anything. It is one less obstruction to deal with as 'thought subsides and one rests in neutral and indifferent, bare attention', as you say. The attention is quite alive and alert. Thoughts are not absent completely, but they are not engaged in the habitual way that the discursive mind operates. This has nothing to do with the ordinary afflicted mind. It is not about rejection, suppression, or reification, nor philosophy. If I am pushed to really describe it better, I would use the words vast, knowing without knowledge, clear and present. No problems to solve, nothing to understand or realize.

krodha wrote:
Right, you are describing a neutral and indifferent state of attention where thought is not being engaged with but rather simply observed.
Amirite?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 25th, 2017 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Anonymous X said:
Krodha,
The letting go of views happens when the referents are understood to have no basis, no true existent self. It is not let go of in order to accomplish anything. It is one less obstruction to deal with as 'thought subsides and one rests in neutral and indifferent, bare attention', as you say. The attention is quite alive and alert. Thoughts are not absent completely, but they are not engaged in the habitual way that the discursive mind operates. This has nothing to do with the ordinary afflicted mind. It is not about rejection, suppression, or reification, nor philosophy. If I am pushed to really describe it better, I would use the words vast, knowing without knowledge, clear and present. No problems to solve, nothing to understand or realize.

krodha wrote:
Right, you are describing a neutral and indifferent state of attention where thought is not being engaged with but rather simply observed.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 25th, 2017 at 6:00 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Anonymous X said:
You seem to equate an absence of view as a blank, wordless state. Now I see where you get this image from. I can tell you that it is not a blank, wordless state. It is alive with a presence and clarity that is quite different than what you are imagining. Wisdom begins to function without the obstruction of discursive mind. It is not that thoughts are bad. It is that they cannot comprehend what is. Attachment and identification are absent when you let go of your view, that is if you don't reify another view. I'm surprised that you don't see this.

krodha wrote:
Again, "letting go of views" is not what Nāgārjuna means by "abandonment of views." Nāgārjuna's "abandonment of views" denotes a pacification of referents, and this exhaustion of referents results from the experiential realization that phenomena are non-arisen.

It has nothing to do with the inability of concepts or thoughts to capture "what is."

"Letting go" of views accomplishes nothing. People can let go of views all they want, but their cognition will remain afflicted because they still perceive referents. Objects are still cognized when thought subsides and one rests in neutral and indifferent, bare attention. This is why the Kun bzang smon lam states:

The vacant state of not thinking anything, is itself the cause of ignorance and confusion.

The so-called "abandonment of views" (or exhaustion of views) is something else entirely, and only occurs when one realizes non-arising and existents and non-existents no longer appear. One must experientially awaken to recognize this truth about phenomena, and this truth is not known by the everyday afflicted mind. Shantideva describes this awakening here:

When neither an existent nor a nonexistent remain before the mind, at that time since there is no other aspect [concepts] are fully pacified as there is no objective support.

A "view" requires an existent referent, or "objective support" as Shantideva puts it. If referents no longer appear then there is no support for a "view."

The authentic exhaustion of views is something radically different than the mere "rejection of reification" you are describing. Reification occurs prior to imputation due to the afflicted perception of referents, you cannot abandon imputation in order to uproot reification. Instead you must experientially realize the absence of a basis for imputation, and only then is reification undone.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 19th, 2017 at 4:09 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Anonymous X said:
Let's not be too literal. Did I say 'awaken through letting go'? I don't think I even mentioned 'awakening'.

krodha wrote:
Awakening and uprooting affliction is the name of the game.

Anonymous X said:
These are your concepts that you fashion into dogma.

krodha wrote:
Awakening and removing obscurations are my concepts? I don't think so.

Anonymous X said:
Letting go is not rejection and not nihilism.

krodha wrote:
You are downplaying "concepts" in the name of "letting go" in this very thread.

Marginalizing concepts is nothing more than attaching to an opposite extreme. It's the neo-Advaita game: rejecting concepts in the name of being "non-conceptual", in order to emulate some semblance of something misunderstood. Those who commit this error accomplish nothing, they marinate in their avidyā, thinking they're ten steps ahead of those they're attempting to contradict. Unaware that they are compromising everything and forfeiting a chance to make a substantial imprint on their continuums in this lifetime.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 19th, 2017 at 1:19 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Anonymous X said:
It could be summed up as a letting go, not a very technical term, but extremely effective in daily life that has nothing to do with mind training. It is not dissimilar from Nagarjuna's emptiness of all views.

krodha wrote:
Nāgārjuna's emptiness of views is due to an exhaustion of referents. Vastly different than giving up, or "letting go" as you term it.

Anonymous X said:
The knife cannot cut itself. This is the problem defending any system of thought. Dogma sets in. Rigor mortis of the brain.

krodha wrote:
A knife cannot cut itself, nevertheless, there is genuine awakening. And you either awaken or you don't.

Dogma can take on many forms, even nihilism, which consists of rejecting views and "systems of thought" guised as "letting go."

No one awakens through letting go and just sitting around being content with delusion.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 19th, 2017 at 6:12 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Sherab said:
I see.  You are speaking from ultimate truth perspective.  That is fine.  But it still does not mean that once cessation occurs, there is nothing left.  From Cula-sunnata Sutta:

"Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed."

krodha wrote:
This sutta is describing a different type of "emptiness" (trivial emptiness). It is not the profound emptiness being discussed in this thread.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 17th, 2017 at 12:40 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Anonymous X said:
As far as I understand the samadhis of the Advaitins, nirvikalpa is not something they even strive for. It is seen as more 'experience' as it does not deal with things as they are. It is a one-sided affair that does not integrate stillness and movement. I believe this is why Ramana stressed the importance of sahaj samadhi, coming to rest in the natural state. One doesn't stay in nirvikalpa samadhi. It does not involve the nature of the person and phenomenon. I would say that neither Vajropama or sahaj samadhi should be the concern of any practitioner as these seem to occur spontaneously and without any will or effort on our part.

Where can I find a textual description of vajropama samadhi?

krodha wrote:
The Advaitins no doubt define "sahaj" differently than say, Mahāmudrā does. Sahaj for Advaitins is resting effortlessly as Brahman.

You are right though, Advaitins like Śri Atmananda Krishna Menon state that nirvikalpa samadhi is a temporary state and is not the ultimate goal.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 16th, 2017 at 2:24 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Anonymous X said:
This is a very important point, imo. So many make the mistake of thinking that cessation is annihilation. Annihilation would take effort, will. There is no effort or will in cessation. It is not a 'self-centred' activity of a 'do-er'.

krodha wrote:
Annihilation is the mistaken notion that an existent can become a non-existent. Rather than "effort", it only requires the presence of ignorance regarding the ultimate nature of phenomena.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 16th, 2017 at 7:28 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Sherab said:
Correct me if I am wrong.  If I am right, then cessation for you is the same as annihilation because nothing is left after cessation.  That is an extreme position in my view.

krodha wrote:
The issue in this thread is that you do not actually understand dependent origination, and are viewing conditioned phenomena in terms of origination and cessation.

Those who impute arising and disintegration
With relation to conditioned things,
They do not understand the movement
Of the wheel of dependent origination.
— Yuktiṣaṣṭikākārika


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 15th, 2017 at 1:43 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Anonymous X said:
It's not quite clear to me if Advaita also posits Brahman as ultimate truth.

krodha wrote:
Most definitely.

Anonymous X said:
Brahman is the ultimate reality for them and Atman is the true self of man.

krodha wrote:
And ātman is ultimately equivalent to Brahman. Hence the arguments that this equivalency [ātman = brahman] only serves to fortify one's sense of selfhood.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 15th, 2017 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Sherab said:
Here is why 'unconditioned' is not a suitable term to describe emptiness and therefore the ultimate:

When something is dependently arisen, it implies that the something is not unconditioned. If you assert that emptiness is dependent arising or dependent co-arising, and if you also assert that emptiness is empty as well, then you would be implying that emptiness is not unconditioned. Your reply did not address the logical problem raised.

krodha wrote:
You're asserting that conditioned entities actually originate dependently?


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 14th, 2017 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Sherab said:
It is also easy to understand why many are confused between the Buddhist ultimate and the non-Buddhist ultimate, especially Hindu ultimate.

krodha wrote:
How is your own view different than a non-Buddhist "Hindu" ultimate?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 12th, 2017 at 7:51 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Sherab said:
Just because the unconditioned cannot be established does not mean that it is not there.

krodha wrote:
The so-called "unconditioned" is the very nature of the allegedly conditioned.

The very non-arising of conditioned dharmas [saṃskṛtadharmas] is the unconditioned [asaṃskṛta] dharmatā. It is an epistemic realization which dispels ignorance by severing the causes and conditions for invalid cognition... not an ontological X that exists on its own (that is what Vedanta teaches).

Recognizing the true nature [satyalakṣhaṇa] of phenomena, as innately unproduced [anutpāda] is to realize that the allegedly conditioned is a misconception of ignorance, and therefore the conditioned has in fact been unconditioned from the very beginning.

Therefore it is not that there is an unconditioned nature which abides apart from conditioned phenomena. The "unconditioned" is merely knowledge of the actual nature of "conditioned" phenomena. Phenomena [dharmins] are themselves, in essence, unconditioned, their unconditioned nature is their dharmatā.

The correct understanding of phenomena, reveals that phenomena (as misperceived via ignorance) have never occurred in the way one's ignorance made them appear. As a result it is seen that there has never been anything which was bound, nor anything which required liberation.

Hence:

Outside of the saṃskṛtas [conditioned dharmas], there are no asaṃskṛta [unconditioned dharmas], and the true nature [bhūtalakṣaṇa] of the saṃskṛta is exactly asaṃskṛta. The saṃskṛtas being empty, etc. the asaṃskṛtas themselves are also empty, for the two things are not different. Besides, some people, hearing about the defects of the saṃskṛtadharmas, become attached [abhiniveśante] to the asaṃskṛtadharmas and, as a result of this attachment, develop fetters.
- Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 25th, 2017 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness nutshells
Content:
krodha wrote:
You either realize emptiness or you don't. "Practicing" consists of cultivating that insight through extended periods of equipoise after initial realization.

Which means you can't really say there is any "practice" related to emptiness unless you've had that realization to begin with.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 21st, 2017 at 4:24 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
the second wheel of the emptiness teachings of the Prajnaparamita teachings which are seen as flawed because they are subject to interpretation and argument, and finally the third wheel which explains emptiness according to the three naturelesnesses, which is proclaimed to be the best because it isn't subject to interpretation and argument.

krodha wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Saṃdhinirmocana itself actually does not mention or even allude to the prajñāpāramitā being the second turning, right?

The association of the prajñāpāramitā with the second turning comes from Wonhyo's own writing which serves as the basis for the modern three turning scheme.

The original excerpt from the Saṃdhinirmocana is quite vague and only lists the defining principles or key features of the second and third turnings, which are actually identical.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 21st, 2017 at 11:35 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
krodha wrote:
[ting nge dzin]

Lukeinaz said:
Krodha, thanks for taking the time with this thread.  Is the above wylie correct?  The translation I found says "clearly".  Thanks!

krodha wrote:
Ting nge 'dzin is "samadhi" or "contemplation."

Synonym for equipoise [mnyam bzhag] or the state of tregchö in Dzogchen.

Resting in direct, experiential knowledge [rig pa] of the nature of mind [sems nyid].


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 20th, 2017 at 7:39 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Emptiness is the definitive teaching of the Dharma.

rachmiel said:
Not the Third Turning Buddhanature teaching?

krodha wrote:
The legitimacy of the "three turning" scheme as it is today, or even in general, is questionable.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 18th, 2017 at 1:13 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
Anonymous X said:
I would have to agree with Krodha, no reason to go about your day thinking about this.

krodha wrote:
I meant there is no reason to go about one's day negating concepts from the standpoint of our relative condition.

Anonymous X said:
There is nothing to fix or change.

krodha wrote:
There is much to fix and change. One must uproot the cause of samsara one way or another.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 18th, 2017 at 1:07 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
Jesse said:
Untrue, (Depending on your teacher, and their methods.) In Zen (Thich Nhat Hahn's school), he recommends viewing the world, and everything as empty, and interconnected as part of his teachings.

krodha wrote:
Sure, my point is that there is no reason to actively negate things in everyday parlance.

Jesse said:
For example, when looking at a tree, you try to see it's selfless nature, and by seeing it's selfless nature, you also see its interconnected nature. The tree is made of water, elements from the earth, so a tree is interconnected with literally everything. You could even trace a tree back to your self if you dig far enough.

krodha wrote:
A nice thought but this is not quite the view of non-arising that the Mahāyāna intends to communicate.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 18th, 2017 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
rachmiel said:
But it can imo/ime be an effective tool for breaking (or at least denting!) the habit of believing in a reified self and in reified phenomena.

krodha wrote:
Ultimately everything without exception is non-arisen and free from the four extremes. Good to keep this in mind, but no reason to go about one's day actively negating everything.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, July 17th, 2017 at 1:16 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
krodha wrote:
You, me, he, she, they, them etc., name your convention. The buddhadharma allows for conventional distinctions and diversity, even if conventions are ultimately mere inferences.

This isn't neo-Advaita where we have to constantly negate conventions: "there's no one to realize X", "there's no one here", etc. Gymnastics of that nature are no doubt tiring and quite dumb to be honest.

Anonymous X said:
So are your pointed remarks.

krodha wrote:
That was intended as a broad remark, not directed at you specifically, but fair enough.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, July 17th, 2017 at 12:13 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
Anonymous X said:
I never said it could be attained. Who could attain it?

krodha wrote:
You, me, he, she, they, them etc., name your convention. The buddhadharma allows for conventional distinctions and diversity, even if conventions are ultimately mere inferences.

This isn't neo-Advaita where we have to constantly negate conventions: "there's no one to realize X", "there's no one here", etc. Gymnastics of that nature are no doubt tiring and quite dumb to be honest.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, July 17th, 2017 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
Anonymous X said:
Nihilism is denying the existence of anything. I never said this.

krodha wrote:
Nihilism in the context of these teachings is the negation of structures, conventions, models, causality, compassion, the basis, the path, the result, etc. You negate many of these things and err into nihilism as a result.

Anonymous X said:
I don't believe in models of existence and systems that purport to teach us what reality is.

krodha wrote:
You must believe in them since you spend an inordinate amount of time rejecting them. Otherwise why bother swinging a stick at a mirage, that is tantamount to what you are doing.

Anonymous X said:
Reality cannot be grasped through concepts

krodha wrote:
No one ever said "reality" (whatever that is) is supposed to be contained in concepts.

No one here has said the word "sweet" is the actual taste of sugar. Nevertheless, for those who have never tasted sugar, describing it as "salty" is inaccurate and does them a great disservice. Therefore correct concepts and understanding is important.

Anonymous X said:
but only through the ending of grasping and the separate existence of a self that underlies all perception.

krodha wrote:
"Grasping" does not cease via negation, aversion or rejection.

Grasping is quelled through cognizing the non-arising of allegedly existent referents.

Anonymous X said:
This is not nihilism.

krodha wrote:
It is, but it is okay if you don't want to accept it.

Anonymous X said:
The natural state exists but is not graspable through the discursive and grasping consciousness.

krodha wrote:
Technically it would be inaccurate to say the natural state "exists."

That said, no one here suggested dharmatā is "graspable through discursive" principles of processes. However one gets no closer to it through negation, aversion and rejection.

Convention is considered ultimately inferential... by negating convention you are taking the position that convention is ultimately referential, meaning, you believe convention actually refers to valid entities and processes that require negation. You are simply falling off the other side of the horse, like a neo-Advaitin.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 16th, 2017 at 5:47 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
Anonymous X said:
I have not lapsed into nihilism as one might think by negating much of what is talked about.

krodha wrote:
The view you are generally communicating in these discussions is considered nihilism [chad par lta ba].


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 16th, 2017 at 12:48 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
Anonymous X said:
The 'uncontrived' state of contemplation is not the same as 'meditation' to me.

krodha wrote:
Contemplation [ting nge dzin] is the meditation in Dzogpachenpo. If you aren't resting in contemplation you aren't really practicing Dzogchen.

But yes, contemplation is not the same as a deliberate meditation practice like śamatha.

Anonymous X said:
Uncontrived to me, means that effort has fallen away as well as all models and philosophy.

krodha wrote:
Models and philosophy are implemented on the outset and during times of post-equipoise [rjes thob]. They are tools, one does not abandon them.

Anonymous X said:
While I agree that we must start with effort to make heads or tails out of what is told to us throughout life on all levels, there comes a point where any effort is seen as grasping.

krodha wrote:
"Grasping" comes in the form of accepting and rejecting. If you are rejecting effort then you are still grasping.

Anonymous X said:
This is not just a thought in the mind, it is a palpable feeling that the whole body is registering. The habit of grasping is very deep. You cannot train the brain to not grasp. To illustrate what I'm talking about, I used to smoke many years ago. It was an annoying habit and a dangerous one as I witnessed my mother die from lung cancer. My wife and kids also would react strongly whenever I lit up. So, I made the decision to stop. It was cold turkey. I could witness the craving in my brain for the habit, but what really bothered me was the feeling throughout my body, the anger, irritability, and sick feeling that the habit produced when it was withdrawn. That withdrawal was physical as well as mental. I never touched another cigarette again and the craving took a few months to subside. It is very similar to 'grasping' and wanting to practice something to quench a 'thirst'.

krodha wrote:
If you are on the path then you must practice. Otherwise you are erring into nihilism, which I believe you are.

Anonymous X said:
You can adapt a model to handle the mental aspect of this craving, but there is no model that is going to stop the habit that the body has learned from birth. The withdrawal of seeking leaves a kind of burning grasping that needs to burn itself out, not fed. I do believe that the natural state spontaneously burns all of this up and that there is an adaptation that the body goes through. But it is not the same as the model that has been setup to follow and practice. That model is a cultural conditioning like all others.

krodha wrote:
The prajñā experienced in equipoise "burns away" afflictions. But one does not abandon the need for practice. The practice is continually returning to equipoise, until equipoise and post-equipoise merge.

You cannot accomplish that by doing nothing.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 16th, 2017 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Zen
Content:
CedarTree said:
I stumbled upon a teaching from Jackson Peterson who appears to be a Dzogchen teacher.

krodha wrote:
"Appears" being the operative term.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 16th, 2017 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
Anonymous X said:
I don't understand the term pristine consciousness in the way that you are using it.

krodha wrote:
Pristine consciousness is jñāna [ye shes].

Anonymous X said:
To me, consciousness is always paired to the alaya.

krodha wrote:
Afflicted and dualistic consciousness [vijñāna], would indeed be associated with the ālaya in cycles where the twin basis model is used.

Anonymous X said:
But consciousness is not a stand alone object as the Advaitins seem to think of it as.

krodha wrote:
The mind is "conscious" by definition and said consciousness can either be afflicted or unafflicted depending on whether dharmatā has been recognized or not.

Anonymous X said:
The nature of mind seems to be defined in Dzogchen as 'beyond' consciousness and alaya.

krodha wrote:
The dharmatā of mind is simply the mind's innate characteristics of clarity and emptiness that are inseparable. When that nature is not recognized, then the ālaya manifests. A mind that is in recognition of its nature is expressed as jñāna, which is a species of pristine consciousness.

Anonymous X said:
Are you equating pristine consciousness and the natural state as the same? If you are, it is not my understanding of what my own teacher has said about it.

krodha wrote:
The mind is expressed as pristine consciousness [ye shes] when resting in the so-called "natural state" [gnas lugs]. I'm sure your teacher agrees.

Anonymous X said:
It also seems to me when you use the term equipose, that it is sems (mind) that is in equipose, and very subtly distinguishing its own state.

krodha wrote:
Not sure why you would think that. Periods of equipoise [mnyam bzhag] occur when one is in recognition of the nature of mind [sems nyid].

Anonymous X said:
I can't follow the thinking about vidya, jnana, and dharamata. Again, seems like the mind naming things.

krodha wrote:
And you're allergic to the mind "naming things?"

Anonymous X said:
I would also describe the natural state as simply seeing things the way things really are, but neither you nor I live like that and are simply repeating the words of others.

krodha wrote:
Neither of us have reached the point where equipoise and post-equipoise have merged, but that does not mean one of us has not known equipoise.

Anonymous X said:
This is my main critique of what practitioners mostly do. It is not a personal criticism, it is just what I observe, both in myself and others. It is a very difficult thing to 'go beyond' this. For me, effort doesn't do a thing to change this.

krodha wrote:
You had better put in a ton of effort. Deliberate mindfulness, śamatha practice, the sems dzins etc., are essential prerequisites to contemplation for most. Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche and Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche describe the contrived mindfulness of śamatha etc., as the "practitioner chasing the meditation", whereas the uncontrived state of contemplation is "the meditation chasing the practitioner." You'd better chase that meditation.

If you aren't putting in effort you are doing nothing and will remain an afflicted sentient being.

Anonymous X said:
My own teacher said you simply give up the search when you've reached the point of exhaustion of every possibility. This seems to be the great sacrifice of giving up self, but it is not 'you' who is giving up anything. This is what I mean as deception and grasping.

krodha wrote:
Simply "giving up" will not suffice, unfortunately. I know your teacher, Lopön Tenzin Namdak does not advocate for "giving up."

In fact, he says very clearly:

On the side of the practitioner, practice and commitment are most certainly required. The Natural State in itself is totally open and clear and spacious like the sky but we, as individuals, are not totally open and unobstructed.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 15th, 2017 at 4:19 PM
Title: Re: Where does the idea of the three paths come from?
Content:
Temicco said:
i.e. path of abandoning, path of transformation, path of self-liberation. In what text(s) is this idea first discussed?

krodha wrote:
From the Zhang Zhung sNyan rgyud [per Malcolm]:

Now then, the first, the path of renunciation, gives up the ten nonvirtues and accomplishes the ten virtues. The result is asserted to be buddhahood after many lives and eons. That is the path of causal characteristics.

Second, the so called “path of transformation” of result secret mantra is transforming the outer universe into a celestial mansion, transforming the inhabitants into gods and goddesses, transforming the five samsaya substances into the five ambrosias, transforming the five aggregates into the five deities and transforming the five afflictions into the five wisdoms. This is asserted as buddhahood, being the path of result secret mantra.

However, neither the path of renunciation nor the past of transformation will be explained here. What it to be explained here now is the inseparability of cause and result in the great vehicle.

In the explanation of the so called “path of great self liberation with nothing to accept or reject” samsara and nirvana, existence and nonexistence, the duality of permanence and annihilation, the duality of happiness and suffering, the duality of attachment and aversion, the five afflictions, the eight consciousnesses, all appearances of deluded concepts of subject and object are not abandoned and are not to be abandoned. Since everything arises from the mind, in the sole unique sphere, abandonment and accepting do not exist as a duality. Therefore, everything that arises self-arises, everything that is liberated is self-liberated, therefore it is termed “the path of liberation.”


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 15th, 2017 at 4:12 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
Anonymous X said:
How do you distinguish between sems and sems nyid? Is it not sems that is doing the distinguishing?

krodha wrote:
Not at the time of equipoise.

Anonymous X said:
From my understanding, sems nyid does not discriminate. There is no subject apprehending an object.

krodha wrote:
Jñāna is present at that time. Conventionally we can say vidyā knows dharmatā during equipoise.

Anonymous X said:
Sems cannot apprehend Rigpa, so it follows that all 'experiences/insights' are still part of the sems story, albeit a different one than what we normally are thinking about.

krodha wrote:
A moment of transcendent insight in the context of Dzogpachenpo is merely a cessation of afflicted mind. Pristine consciousness is present at that time.

Anonymous X said:
If the natural state cannot be apprehended, how can we speak about it? We can only speak about what it is not, so I refer back to Nagarjuna's statement about the view of emptiness and the letting go of this view, too.

krodha wrote:
The nature of mind [cittatā] is cognized by vidyā, and mind is expressed as jñāna. The so-called "natural state" is simply seeing the way things really are.

You seem to be overthinking this. And subsequently negating too much in your quest to diminish grasping at views.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 15th, 2017 at 4:27 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
rachmiel said:
Being attached to a view of something as "exalted" as emptiness is not any better than being attached to a view of anything else. (In fact, it might be worse.)

krodha wrote:
There's a difference between being "attached" to a view and implementing a view as a tool.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 15th, 2017 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
Anonymous X said:
It's all nonsense, isn't it?

krodha wrote:
No, it isn't. But I get that the neo-spiritual types like to think so.

Anonymous X said:
Now you are categorizing with your sems or sems nyid?

krodha wrote:
Is this a rhetorical question? If not, how is this relevant?

Anonymous X said:
Do you have anything to really add to the discussion? If not, why bother with these kinds of remarks?

krodha wrote:
This is part of the discussion.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 14th, 2017 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
Anonymous X said:
It's all nonsense, isn't it?

krodha wrote:
No, it isn't. But I get that the neo-spiritual types like to think so.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 14th, 2017 at 4:50 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness: expedient or certain teaching?
Content:
Anonymous X said:
You can't recognize emptiness, you can only conceptualize and then the danger of re-ification occurs. That is a circular motion. Not naming it and classifying it is living it.

krodha wrote:
Nonsense.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, July 10th, 2017 at 5:43 AM
Title: Re: Appearance and Mind
Content:
krodha wrote:
This sums it up:

Khenpo Gangshar said:
Perceived objects, such as form, sound, and so forth, have appeared due to mind, but they are not mind--they are the shared appearances of sentient beings and do not possess any true existence, besides being phenomena of dependent origination.

krodha wrote:
Dzogchen posits a container universe like Yogācāra where the collective traces of sentient beings manifest a common reality... as opposed to positing an independently substantial external world that is accessed via the senses via intromission like western scientific materialism believes. There is no artifact-like universe out there.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 5th, 2017 at 9:50 AM
Title: Re: Please, say some protective mantras for me
Content:
krodha wrote:
[Mod note: off topic edited.]

Stefos said:
As I mentioned in my other thread, I'm a disabled vet with respiratory issues and gastritis and potentially now CDIFF. My feet and ankles now swell also and I'm concerned for my life as swelling feet and ankles are indicative of greater medical issues.

krodha wrote:
Thank you for your service, and I am sorry to hear that and hope your condition has an opportunity to improve quickly.

Stefos said:
Why don't you say some protective mantras and do a puja or two for me please as opposed to defending another person? I need the mantras and puja and I'd appreciate it if you did do them for me. Please stop arguing in the stead of another cause that's not the Dharma.

krodha wrote:
Arguing and debating have their place. I will send positive thoughts your way.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 1st, 2017 at 2:48 PM
Title: Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita
Content:
krodha wrote:
You deleted your post, and I'll do you the courtesy of not quoting it, but I had written this in response and figure it can help in moving the discussion forward:

Suffering is not seen as "perfect." Suffering does indeed arise as a result of the dynamism of the basis, but it is not a part of the basis. Much like clouds that obscure the sun arise as a result of the sun's dynamism, but are not part of the sun itself.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 1st, 2017 at 2:23 PM
Title: Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita
Content:
smcj said:
*Obviously this is not a Dzogchen view which sees everything as the perfection of the basis.

krodha wrote:
Not everything. The varying phenomena that appear due to non-recognition of the basis are not seen as perfect, nor even expressions of the basis.

smcj said:
You sure about that? Doesn't sound right to me, samsara and nirvana being the same and all.

At this point it would be nice if Malcolm weighed in on this.

krodha wrote:
From the seed of attachment and aversion, 
the whole outer universe and inhabitants are mistakes.
- Uprooting Delusion Tantra [per Malcolm]


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 1st, 2017 at 12:09 PM
Title: Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita
Content:
smcj said:
*Obviously this is not a Dzogchen view which sees everything as the perfection of the basis.

krodha wrote:
Not everything. The varying phenomena that appear due to non-recognition of the basis are not seen as perfect, nor even expressions of the basis.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 1st, 2017 at 10:04 AM
Title: Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita
Content:
smcj said:
Admittedly there are different views on the subject. Ultimately what is being discussed is ineffable anyway, so If you don't like Dudjom R.'s view you don't have to accept it.

krodha wrote:
Everything is ultimately "ineffable", the taste of sugar for example. The word "sweet" does not capture the ineffable taste of sugar, yet at the same time describing that taste as "salty" would be inaccurate.

Indeed there are different views on the subject, that said, Dudjom Rinpoche's is fairly novel as far as I can tell... and given that he was comparing sūtra views to Dzogchen, I really can't imagine he had too much invested in his position on the matter.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 1st, 2017 at 9:04 AM
Title: Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita
Content:
smcj said:
I don't know much about Dzogchen either, but I know that Dudjom R. was an important modern teacher of Dzogchen, and he says in his Big Red Book that the Dzogchen view is equivalent to Great Madhyamaka/Shentong.

So it seems that there are multiple possible ways to skin that cat. You can pick whichever one floats your boat--to badly mix metaphors.

krodha wrote:
Trotting out the unwarranted "great Madhyamaka" title in reference to gzhan stong yet again?

One would be hard pressed to legitimately demonstrate that Dzogpachenpo and gzhan stong are commensurate. The two views are really quite far apart.

For one, gzhan stong says the kāyas of the result are fully formed at what Dzogchen would term "the time of the basis", this in and of itself demonstrates that the key positions of both systems are irreconcilable. A fully formed result is unheard of in Dzogchen.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 30th, 2017 at 9:43 AM
Title: Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita
Content:
Stefos said:
Nagarjuna, was a Mahasiddha, right?

krodha wrote:
There was more than one Nāgārjuna. There is the Siddha Nāgārjuna and Ārya Nāgārjuna. The latter is the one referenced by Malcolm. Ārya Nāgārjuna would not have encountered Dzogchen teachings.

Stefos said:
For me there IS a substratum: Emptiness, Clarity and Bliss

krodha wrote:
Again BLISS IS NOT PART OF THE EQUATION.

In the scheme you are referencing there is emptiness [stong pa nyid], clarity [gsal ba] and their inseparability [dbyer med]. The trio being stong gsal dbyer med.

Emptiness means a substratum is impossible. But you don't seem like you want to listen.

Stefos said:
Is this what Sri Nagarjuna taught?

krodha wrote:
Never.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 30th, 2017 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita
Content:
Stefos said:
By "substratum" I mean the original ground, which is the Dharmakaya qualified by Emptiness, Clarity & Bliss.

So, yes, there is a substratum according to that definition I believe sir.

krodha wrote:
There is no such definition.

You seem to be conflating the essence, nature and compassion of the so-called "basis", with the inseparability of emptiness and clarity which also defines said nature.

"Bliss" is not part of the equation. And none of these principles imply, suggest nor denote a "substratum" of any kind.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 29th, 2017 at 2:28 PM
Title: Re: Sudden Buddhahood?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
At any point, did Ch'an masters advocate for sudden enlightenment being perfect Buddhahood? Or is it simply kensho?

krodha wrote:
I've seen people argue for the former. Seems misguided and unrealistic to me...


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 29th, 2017 at 10:44 AM
Title: Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita
Content:
Stefos said:
A prior poster stated that Emptiness proves there is no substratum.........This doesn't make sense to me.

IF everything is Empty, Then Emptiness IS the substratum of everything and IS Eternal.

krodha wrote:
Ask yourself, how can phenomena that never originated in the first place have a substratum?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 29th, 2017 at 8:06 AM
Title: Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita
Content:
smcj said:
There is a (presumably) different Nagarjuna that wrote "Dharmadhatustava" a.k.a "In Praise of Dharmadhatu" which is closer to what you're talking about.

krodha wrote:
Although not really, at all.

smcj said:
Fast forward to Tibet and there are some authors like Dolpopa that have a view they call "empty-of-other" which is Advaita-like.

krodha wrote:
Again, not really, even according to Dolbupa himself. It's really a stretch even to say it is "Advaita-like."


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 29th, 2017 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita
Content:
krodha wrote:
As the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra states:

Outside of the saṃskṛtas [conditioned dharmas], there are no asaṃskṛta [unconditioned dharmas], and the true nature [bhūtalakṣaṇa] of the saṃskṛta is exactly asaṃskṛta. The saṃskṛtas being empty, etc. the asaṃskṛtas themselves are also empty, for the two things are not different. Besides, some people, hearing about the defects of the saṃskṛtadharmas, become attached [abhiniveśante] to the asaṃskṛtadharmas and, as a result of this attachment, develop fetters.

Going on to say that the person who rejects the saṃskṛtas [conditioned] is attached to the asaṃskṛtas [unconditioned] by attributing to them the characteristics of non-production [anutpāda], and by the very fact of this attachment those asaṃskṛtas are immediately transformed into saṃskṛtas. Which, as I have pointed out before; is equivalent to the act of turning dharmatā (the emptiness of a given entity) into a dharmin by considering it to be a separate, existent, unconditioned, free-standing nature.

It should instead be understood that the very non-arising of conditioned dharmas [saṃskṛtadharmas] is the unconditioned [saṃskṛta] dharmatā. It is an epistemic realization which dispels ignorance by severing the causes and conditions for invalid cognition... not an ontological X that exists on its own (that is what Vedanta teaches).


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 17th, 2017 at 4:43 PM
Title: Re: Self and no self
Content:
Anonymous X said:
There are many sutras in the Tathagatagarbha class of sutras that discuss 'self'.

krodha wrote:
Said sūtras arguably implement the term "ātman" as a subversive rhetorical device in order to describe one facet of nirvana in the context of the four pāramitās. They are not literally describing an entity of some sort.

Anonymous X said:
Many Buddhists categorically reject this notion, but they don't understand what is really being pointed to.

krodha wrote:
A bold charge.

Anonymous X said:
Why not call the Buddha the 'True Self'?

krodha wrote:
Why not call him a pink elephant? The term "satyātman" never appears in any Indian text.

Anonymous X said:
What difference does it make what term is used to describe reality or the 'natural state'?

krodha wrote:
It makes a big difference in some cases.

Anonymous X said:
Language is not the final arbiter of understanding. Direct perception undermines all models and concepts.

krodha wrote:
However one's view arguably informs realization in some cases. This is why "right view" is first and foremost.

Anonymous X said:
It seems to me without direct perception, one is stuck in the language which actually prevents direct perception.

krodha wrote:
"Direct perception" is generally afflicted and dualistic in sentient beings due to the mistaken reification of entities that appear to arise and cease.

Anonymous X said:
The immutable is still the immutable no matter what we call it.

krodha wrote:
Are you suggesting there is some sort of actual "immutable" entity that is apprehended in numerous ways by various individuals and traditions?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 17th, 2017 at 4:23 PM
Title: Re: Self and no self
Content:
Anonymous X said:
I've read all of it. Again, I will direct you to the actual masters, those who have understood this,

krodha wrote:
Such as?

Anonymous X said:
not those who have their own interpretation of what it means to suit their pre-conceived notions.

krodha wrote:
Are you suggesting your own interpretation is exempt?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 8th, 2017 at 12:38 PM
Title: Re: Melong in Dzogchen
Content:
DGA said:
I've noticed that DC people, including ChNN, wear the melong as a pendant more or less at heart level

krodha wrote:
The location of sugatagarbha.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 23rd, 2017 at 4:48 PM
Title: Re: Sam Harris receives a (literal) pointing out instruction
Content:
Anonymous X said:
He even goes as far as calling this 'True Self'. Of course, we immediately think of Advaita and it's posit of an atman as true self. This kind of conception is not very different from each other, and the Buddha lived in a time where this kind of teaching must have been prevalent. Buddhist scholars have argued this point of 'positive' essence vehemently, both for and against this kind of thinking. How do you personally interpret this? Is it just semantics that we get lost in and both systems are talking about the 'ineffable' using different terms? What would the difference between Brahman and buddhanature really be?

krodha wrote:
The term "true self" [satyātman] actually never appears in any of the tathāgatagarbha sūtras. It's presence in select English texts is a translational gloss chosen by a couple authors to fit their own biases.

Further, the Laṅkāvatāra is explicitly clear that the tathāgatagarbha is not to be conflated with the self of the non-buddhists.

The Laṅkā also states:

O Mahāmati, with a view to casting aside the heterodox theory, you must treat the tathāgatagarbha as not self [anātman].

Bhāviveka demonstrates the proper way to view buddhanature:

The statement "The tathāgata pervades" means wisdom pervades all objects of knowledge, but it does not mean abiding in everything like Viśnu. Further, "Tathāgatagarbhin" means emptiness, signlessness and absence of aspiration exist the continuums of all sentient beings, but is not an inner personal agent pervading everyone.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 22nd, 2017 at 10:16 AM
Title: Re: Sam Harris receives a (literal) pointing out instruction
Content:
Malcolm said:
More importantly, he makes a gross error in asserting that Dzogchen and Advaita seeks to provoke the same insight. Nothing could be further from the truth.

michaelb said:
Miserable sophistry, selective quotations and distorted interpretation.

krodha wrote:
You can't be serious.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 22nd, 2017 at 10:03 AM
Title: Re: Za Rahula Almost
Content:
krodha wrote:
The snake lasso and/or the makara club. Rahula is the only statue on my little shrine.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 7th, 2017 at 4:03 AM
Title: Re: Understanding non-duality
Content:
krodha wrote:
Rinpoche uses space and the sun as examples rather than heat or wetness, but same principle:
We speak of a space, or sky. We speak of this space as present within a vase or a room, or the sky. It is the same space. This means the zhi [gzhi] or basis for everyone is the same. The difference we explain in Hinduism or in Dzogchen is the difference between individuals. Because when we say individuals, we mean that I am not you. You are not her. We are not the same. Nor does it mean that when someone is realized, everyone is unified into them and it becomes a kind of ??. That is not what is meant.

Zhi or basis is always composed of a clarity of the individual. This is what we refer to with the example of the sun. If there were ten suns in the sky, we would distinguish ten different suns, and not say that all these ten are one sun. Thus sky and sun are two different things as a way of seeing.
— Chögyal Namkhai Norbu


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 26th, 2017 at 12:23 PM
Title: Re: The four contemplations and gampopa's mahamudra
Content:
krodha wrote:
In case anyone needs a refresher:

The four yogas of mahāmudrā (skt. catvāri mahāmudrā yoga, Wylie: phyag rgya chen po'i rnal 'byor bzhi):

(i) one-pointedness (skt. ekāgra, tib. rtse gcig)
(ii) simplicity (skt. niṣprapāncha, tib. spros bral) "free from complexity" or "not elaborate"
(iii) one taste (skt. samarasa, tib. ro gcig)
(iv) non-meditation (skt. abhāvanā, tib. sgom med)

The four contemplations [ting nge dzin] of Dzogchen sems sde:

(i)  calm state: nepa (gnas pa)
(ii) non-movement: miyowa (mi gyo ba)
(iii) non-dual: nyamnyi (nyam nyid)
(iv) natural perfection: lhundrüp (lhun grub)


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 22nd, 2017 at 1:17 PM
Title: Re: Anonymity on Buddhist forums
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Very well, Lordman.

krodha wrote:
Fitting that the guy who has made a consistent effort to uphold his anonymity is all over this thread.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2017 at 8:06 AM
Title: Re: Recognizing rigpa
Content:
cepheidvariable said:
Does rigpa have any analogues encountered in other vehicles?

krodha wrote:
Prajñā.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2017 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
nowawakening said:
You simply will not convince me otherwise...
Good day.

krodha wrote:
A.k.a. "I'm a staunch perennialist."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2017 at 10:39 AM
Title: Re: (carefully) Broadcasting Dzogchen through music
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, I know I will get in trouble for mentioning this...

Malcolm said:
Never seems to have stopped you before...

dzogchungpa said:
You'd be surprised...

krodha wrote:
We would indeed be surprised.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, October 18th, 2016 at 12:50 PM
Title: Re: “You Can’t Watch Pornos in the Monastery”: Tibetan Tantra, Imagined Pleasure, and the Virtuality of Desire
Content:
maybay said:
So what were you doing watching the entrance of a strip club?

krodha wrote:
I used to get paid to watch the entrance of a strip club. We never got any monks.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 12th, 2016 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Svabhava / Brahman
Content:
rachmiel said:
The HHtDL quote was in reference to the last message on the previous page:

> Asserting that empty phenomena "exist" would not be accurate.

krodha wrote:
The only places I've ever encountered the assertion "empty phenomena exist just not the way we think they do" is in statements by Gelugs. It is not a view found elsewhere.

That said, How to see yourself as you really are is an excellent book.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 at 8:52 AM
Title: Re: Svabhava / Brahman
Content:
rachmiel said:
Empty (i.e. all) phenomena exist, just not in the way we think they exist.

krodha wrote:
Asserting that empty phenomena "exist" would not be accurate.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 6th, 2016 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Is the Dharmakaya unconditioned and uncaused?
Content:
White Lotus said:
the buddha kaya is "this". to see enlightenment see "this". "this" is subject to cessation.

krodha wrote:
Using the term "this" in the manner you're using it is a neo-nondual / neo-Advaita thing, such jargon has no application in the context of the buddhadharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, October 4th, 2016 at 7:16 AM
Title: Re: Is the Dharmakaya unconditioned and uncaused?
Content:
White Lotus said:
"this"/dharmakaya is the totality, but also the units of reality. when we speak of buddha kaya we usually refer to the totality

conebeckham said:
I don't even really know what this means.

krodha wrote:
You aren't alone.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, October 4th, 2016 at 7:15 AM
Title: Re: Question about Tilopa's Six Advices
Content:
rachmiel said:
Not me. I come out of samatī every night to watch TV for a coupla hours. I guess that makes me a dabbler?

krodha wrote:
Sarcasm, I hope.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 1st, 2016 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: Would you vote to decriminalize marijuana?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
It's been legal a few years now in Washington.

krodha wrote:
California may follow suit in November.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 1st, 2016 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: "transmission outside the scriptures"
Content:
Jeff said:
Sure they do.

krodha wrote:
Nah.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 22nd, 2016 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
ChNN has zero confidence in the tulku system, as a whole.

BuddhaFollower said:
Then why did he want his son to go to the monastery he is the tulku of?

krodha wrote:
Rinpoche has said numerous times that there are genuine tulkus out there, but they are very few and far between. For the most part he regards the vast majority of so-called tulkus to be political puppets.

As for the legitimacy of his own status as a tulku, I personally don't doubt it for a second.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 22nd, 2016 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm said:
ChNN has zero confidence in the tulku system, as a whole.

BuddhaFollower said:
Then why did he want his son to go to the monastery he is the tulku of?

krodha wrote:
Probably because it meant a great deal to the people of that region.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2016 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Received lung for Dudjom Rinpoche's "Buddhahood Without Meditation" twice now

krodha wrote:
Not to be a pedant, but I believe you mean Dudjom Lingpa.

Buddhahood Without Meditation is the title for the book which is a translation of his Rang bZhin rDzogs pa Chen po'i Rang Zhel mNgon du Byed pa'i gDams pa ma sGom Sangs rGyas bZhugs so.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 18th, 2016 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
HandsomeMonkeyking said:
Is there a list with the lungs one received during the last Shitro retreat?

I got myself the book 'Guru Arya Tara and Her Twenty-One Praises' and wondered if I can do all the Mantras and practises that I like out of that book.

krodha wrote:
List here:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=4052&start=3800#p3537031


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 5th, 2016 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
Come hell or high water I'll be in Tenerife in December. Hope to see some of you there.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 5th, 2016 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
Well I'm open to having misspoke. In the end all we can do is acknowledge that Rinpoche's students are big boys and girls who are capable of making the right decision for themselves, and hope they will do so.

Malcolm said:
This is a very common thing in the community -- using personal communications with ChNN in the attempt to condition others.

krodha wrote:
Thanks, I wasn't aware it's common, luckily no one does this at our ling in Berkekey.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 5th, 2016 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
.

Even if you don't plan to apply the teachings immediately, it is still good to receive it so you can when you are ready.

florin said:
As disappointing as it may seem, people shouldnt go if they are not ready .
I am afraid to say , rinpoche's advice does not allow for any interpretation.
I asked him a question about readiness and whether people can go to receive the teachings even if they are not ready  but only practice yangti when they are ready and he wasnt very pleased.
No means no.
That's  it.

krodha wrote:
Well I'm open to having misspoke. In the end all we can do is acknowledge that Rinpoche's students are big boys and girls who are capable of making the right decision for themselves, and hope they will do so.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 3rd, 2016 at 3:30 PM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body in Hindhuism
Content:
krodha wrote:
Generally not. Unless one has done extensive practice with the visions and can remain lucid in sleep there is not much hope for the bardo.

Sherab Dorje said:
You can focus on the aspect of inability/unlikelihood, I will focus on the ability/likelihood!

krodha wrote:
It isn't a matter of "focusing" on either. If you haven't trained to recognize the bardo of dharmatā then I really can't see how it is "likely."

It is a nice thought that we will "likely" awaken in the bardo, but in systems like Dzogchen there are actually signs that indicate the "likelyhood" you are advocating for. If those indicators are absent then the prospect of awakening in the bardo really becomes a gamble that isn't stacked in your favor.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 3rd, 2016 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
RikudouSennin said:
Jhanadakini

Could someone please PM me the link to the correct practice book for the Jhanadakini practice the Master gave transmission for?

Thank you very much.
Is it Longsal volume 7?

krodha wrote:
From the VC forum:

Mantrik said:
From Shang Shung Publications:

Transmissions given by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, 26-31 August 2016 Shitro (including the mantra of Changhcub Dorje's Shitro):

http://www.shangshungpublications.org/practices/2016_08_31_practices.html


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 3rd, 2016 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body in Hindhuism
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
For most people, even most Buddhists, the bardo of dharmata passes in a fingersnap.

Many people view Jigme Lingpa as a top authority so I'll just cite him:

"At that time, to the extent that one is familiar with togal practice, these appearances will be supportive aspects of awareness enduring for extended periods of time. For those who are unfamiliar, they will disappear as swiftly as a shooting star." Jigme Lingpa's Yeshe Lama

Sherab Dorje said:
And regardless of this fact, some still recognise their natural state during this finger snap...

krodha wrote:
Generally not. Unless one has done extensive practice with the visions and can remain lucid in sleep there is not much hope for the bardo.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
krodha wrote:
Sure, but the direct experience it signifies is not a concept.

Sherab Dorje said:
And how can you know that given that in our current state EVERYTHING is a concept?

krodha wrote:
When these teachings state "everything is a concept" they are not saying everything is an imputation. "Concept" (in the context you are using it) is used to denote all fabrications that the deluded mind serves to manifest such as ideas, emotions, the five poisons, acceptance, rejection etc.

This does not mean raw appearances like color or sound are imputations.

Sherab Dorje said:
Now you're bringing up how sentient beings experience appearances as influenced by their respective karmic dispositions. You're all over the map.
You are saying there are appearances and there are experiences of appearances?  Are you positing an objectively existent external reality?

krodha wrote:
An objectively existent external reality is ultimately a misconception. But our reality appears that way, and due to our karma and ignorance, we as sentient beings experience the container universe as a concrete, external reality.

Sherab Dorje said:
The "objective reality" we experience is the container universe that is projected by the like traces of sentient beings.
Which is exactly what I am saying:  There is no sweetness outside of the karmically tainted experience/sensation of sweetness.

krodha wrote:
This is so extremely beside the point of what was originally being discussed, and irrelevant.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 3:54 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
krodha wrote:
The salient point is the word "sweet" doesn't put a sweet taste in your mouth. That is something you cannot deny.

Sherab Dorje said:
There is no such thing as a sweet taste.

krodha wrote:
You do realize we can talk like normal human beings, no? You've tasted candy, tasted cookies, you know what "sweet" tastes like. That is all we are talking about. You keep attempting to steer this discussion in some unnecessary analytical, pedantic direction that is irrelevant to the original point of the conversation.

Sherab Dorje said:
There is a sensation when an object of taste comes into contact with the organ of taste.

krodha wrote:
That is great, but irrelevant to the simple point I was making.

Sherab Dorje said:
Sweet is a concept.

krodha wrote:
Sure, but the direct experience it signifies is not a concept.

Sherab Dorje said:
This is what you are failing to understand (and why we are still engaging in discussion).

krodha wrote:
I'm not failing to understand anything.

Sherab Dorje said:
Direct experiences, [visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, etc.] sensations and so on, require zero conceptualization.
Sensation does not require conceptualisation, but the experience of sensation (sweetness) does.

krodha wrote:
You're thinking about this way too hard my friend. It doesn't need to be difficult.

Sherab Dorje said:
A bare and direct experience, like the appearance of color, the feeling of heat, the sound of thunder, require zero conceptualization to appear.
Color, heat (or cold), thunder, etc... are concepts.

krodha wrote:
Correct, but the appearances they represent are not concepts.

Sherab Dorje said:
Imputation occurs after the fact and has no influence on said appearances themselves. Imputation influences the mind, which fails to recognize the actual nature of those appearances.
You just contradicted yourself.

krodha wrote:
I didn't. You just don't understand what I'm saying and are seeing issues where there are none.

Sherab Dorje said:
The very fact that imputation effects sensation means that the appearance is influenced/conditioned, otherwise all objects would be conceived of identically by all sentient beings.

krodha wrote:
Now you're bringing up how sentient beings experience appearances as influenced by their respective karmic dispositions. You're all over the map.

That has nothing to do with imputation.

Sherab Dorje said:
They are not.  Imputation effects appearance, imputation is the essence of sentience.

krodha wrote:
Imputation affects the mind, and how appearances are cognized... it does not affect appearances themselves.

And imputation sure as hell is not the essence of sentience.

Sherab Dorje said:
For ignorant beings sensation always leads to conceptualisation/imputation unless the sensation is too weak to effect the mental continuum.  As such (when we look at the total of the process of sensation for ignorant sentient beings) all appearances/objects are nothing other than mental constructs of the individual sentient beings.

Unless, of course, you propose that there is an objectively existing reality.

krodha wrote:
The "objective reality" we experience is the container universe that is projected by the like traces of sentient beings.

This is why the teachings state that phenomena are not your mind, nor are they other than mind.

At any rate, this discussion is all over the place and borderline nonsensical. 1am here, goodnight world.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 2:46 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
krodha wrote:
That is absolutely true. Can you put the experiential taste of sugar in another person's mouth simply by describing it to them? Obviously not.

Sherab Dorje said:
And in describing it you will be engaging in conceptualisation.

krodha wrote:
And?

Sherab Dorje said:
Just like in experiencing it yourself (past mere sensation) you will also engage in conceptualisation.

krodha wrote:
The salient point is the word "sweet" doesn't put a sweet taste in your mouth. That is something you cannot deny.

Sherab Dorje said:
Thus there is no such thing as a non-conceptual experience or understanding.

krodha wrote:
Nonsense.

Sherab Dorje said:
All experience and understanding requires conceptualisation.

krodha wrote:
Direct experiences, [visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, etc.] sensations and so on, require zero conceptualization.

Sherab Dorje said:
All sensations worthy of attention are conceptualised.

krodha wrote:
A bare and direct experience, like the appearance of color, the feeling of heat, the sound of thunder, require zero conceptualization to appear.

Imputation occurs after the fact and has no influence on said appearances themselves. Imputation influences the mind, which fails to recognize the actual nature of those appearances and engages in conceptual proliferation in the wake of direct experience.

Sherab Dorje said:
Abhidharma 101.  Do you agree or disagree?

krodha wrote:
Clearly I disagree. As for whether it is "Abhidharma 101"... cite your source. I doubt it.
You seem to be arguing for no reason at this point.

Sherab Dorje said:
1.  I am not arguing I am discussing.

2.  If you picked your terms more carefully, or expressed your ideas more clearly, from the beginning, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

krodha wrote:
I express my ideas just fine.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 11:25 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
You said:
krodha wrote:
Which is no different than saying "even the Buddha couldn't effectively communicate the experiential taste of sugar." Which is true, one must experience that taste for themselves to understand it non-conceptually, same goes for the basis.

Sherab Dorje said:
Which is just not true.

krodha wrote:
That is absolutely true. Can you put the experiential taste of sugar in another person's mouth simply by describing it to them? Obviously not.

Sherab Dorje said:
In understanding there is an object of understanding, the subject doing the understanding and the act of understanding (conceptualisation).  If you said non-conceptual realisation then maybe you would be onto something, but even then (as you pointed out yourself re equipoise and post-equipoise) once the process is over...

krodha wrote:
Correct, the so-called "object" of understanding in realization is dharmatā, which is simply what is revealed when there is a cessation of ignorance [avidyā].

Conventionally we say you as a subject have that recognition or realization. However ultimately there is simply a cessation that occurs to reveal the true nature of mind and/or phenomena.

You seem to be arguing for no reason at this point.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
In all seriousness, I'm working on my vajra passive-aggression. Please bear with me.

krodha wrote:
My case in point.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
krodha wrote:
You still haven't answered Malcolm as to what your name is.

dzogchungpa said:
What are you, a cop?

krodha wrote:
People are interested to know what your deal is.

The vast majority of your contributions to these forums involve snide, off-handed, passive-aggressive remarks paraded as humor.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
The point is once you have gone from a sensation, to the label "heat", then you have crossed over into conceptualisation.  There is nothing controversial about that.

krodha wrote:
Right, nothing wrong with that.

Sherab Dorje said:
Go ask one of the Abhidharma crowd if you don't believe me.  Or better still:  go ask your teacher.

krodha wrote:
Ask them about what? This is a non-issue as far as I can tell. Perhaps you are confused as to the nature of the point I was making, that seems to be the case.

Sherab Dorje said:
The experience of seeing the nature of mind is non-conceptual, but once the experience is over...

krodha wrote:
Once equipoise is over one is in post-equipoise. Nothing controversial about that either.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
krodha wrote:
Which is no different than saying "even the Buddha couldn't effectively communicate the experiential taste of sugar." Which is true, one must experience that taste for themselves to understand it non-conceptually, same goes for the basis.

Sherab Dorje said:
Understanding is always conceptual.  Sensation can be non-conceptual, understanding though...

krodha wrote:
Tasting something directly and experientially is non-conceptual. Just as seeing the color blue is non-conceptual. Feeling the heat of a flame is non-conceptual. Recognizing the nature of mind is non-conceptual in that way.

The point being made is that you cannot effectively communicate those non-conceptual experiences with words. The word "heat" does not produce the tactile sensation of heat or provide an intimate understanding of what heat feels like. You must experientially feel heat to truly know it. Same goes for recognizing the nature of mind. That is the only point being made, which shouldn't be controversial at all.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Now, now, krodha, I'm sure I don't need to remind you, of all people, of DW's strict "No meta-discussion" policy.

krodha wrote:
You still haven't answered Malcolm as to what your name is.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Easy, big guy.

krodha wrote:
Weird response, per usual.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
As Jigme Lingpa famously quipped:
"Even the Buddha couldn't explain the ground."

I'm paraphrasing here.

krodha wrote:
Which is no different than saying "even the Buddha couldn't effectively communicate the experiential taste of sugar." Which is true, one must experience that taste for themselves to understand it non-conceptually, same goes for the basis.

Nevertheless, one would be incorrect when describing sugar as "salty", and there are incorrect ways to understand and communicate the basis as well.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2016 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Kim said:
Bullcrap. "Create an obstacle"? How religious one has to be to believe this stuff!? Seriously... All that talk about samaya and creating obstacles. Gimme a break. That's the real tragedy.

krodha wrote:
The irony.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2016 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Kim said:
As a general remark, I'm starting to feel that dzogchen is a bit mystified here at DW.

krodha wrote:
Care to elaborate? Or cite some examples?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2016 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Sitting next to a buddha and not knowing it
Content:
krodha wrote:
Clothing, robes and how adepts and teachers do or don't dress seems to be a reoccurring theme in your posts. Perhaps something to look at.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2016 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
krodha wrote:
Kim, perhaps try splitting your responses up into multiple posts.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Vasana said:
I know there is a retreat at the end of this year but I can't decide if it's the most suitable route of practice for me right now.

But if the transmission is fairly rare it seems like an opportunity not to waste.

krodha wrote:
It is rare, you should make an effort to go if you have the chance.

Even if you don't plan to apply the teachings immediately, it is still good to receive it so you can when you are ready.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Vasana said:
Does anyone know on average how often Rinpoche teaches Yang-Ti ?

...

I understand the webcast is closed but can members still view it and recieve transmission or is it not filmed at all?

Kilaya. said:
Once a year, usually, and it's not broadcasted.

heart said:
It was several years since he did it the last time, 2011 if I am correct.

/magnus

krodha wrote:
Next time is this coming December at Dzamling Gar.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Monism, Eternalism, etc
Content:
boda said:
I clearly stated that "I found it interesting," fellow forummer. If you pay more attention to what people write they won't have to spell everything out for you.

krodha wrote:
I suppose I'm surprised you find an uneducated assertion so interesting.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 4:06 PM
Title: Re: Monism, Eternalism, etc
Content:
boda said:
I wouldn't expect you to realize it but I entered this discussion to address the following statement by davidbrainerd. I found it interesting.
davidbrainerd said:
It cannot be demonstrated to be a fact of existence or any other kind of fact. It would be easier to demonstrate an eternal self than everything is emptiness.

boda said:
So perhaps now you can see why I've inquired about your demonstrable knowledge. But seeing how this apparently makes you uncomfortable we'll let it go.

krodha wrote:
Why would you waste your time entering this discussion to address that statement?

In case you haven't noticed, many of the posts authored by that forummer are quite colorful and not exactly what one would consider well informed.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: Monism, Eternalism, etc
Content:
boda said:
I asked if you've observed this and consider it a fact. Significantly (in regard to the OP), it appears as though you have not, and that being the case you cannot claim it to be fact.

krodha wrote:
I state with great confidence that it is a fact, and that conclusion is not based upon inferential speculation or conjecture.

Apart from saying that, I have no interest in discussing my personal insights, experiences or what I've "observed." This isn't amateur hour. There are plenty of other forums you can go to if you want to listen to alleged practitioners sit around and openly broadcast their experiences to strangers.

boda said:
The cure for grasping is letting go.

krodha wrote:
Sadly this is not the case. "Letting go" does not purify your perception, uproot ignorance from the mind or exhaust kleśas.

Letting go is a nice preliminary attitude and practice, but there is no awakening involved with merely "letting go."

boda said:
It's concerning that you believe insight into emptiness is the only cure. What about moral discipline and the rest?!

krodha wrote:
Moral discipline is a nice provisional practice.

boda said:
Trying to convince yourself that impermanent phenomena are not real won't help matters, other than provide a meaningful practice perhaps.

krodha wrote:
There is no "trying to convince myself" of anything. Just as there is no need to "convince" oneself that sugar is sweet upon tasting it, or that water is wet after having it dumped over your head.

The issue here is that you are attempting to critique things you've never experienced.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: Monism, Eternalism, etc
Content:
krodha wrote:
"Not grasping" from the standpoint of afflicted mind is just another form of grasping. At best it is deluded indifference... but still pure affliction hands down.

The point of the buddhadharma is to uproot the cause for the misperception of conditioned entities that can be "grasped" or "not grasped" altogether. Once that ignorance has been severed then grasping is undone completely.

Until that species of insight dawns, any sort of practice that consists of allegedly "not grasping" is just a provisional and inferential discipline that is implemented for the purposes of reworking certain habits. But still wholly deluded.

A.k.a. faking it til you make it.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Monism, Eternalism, etc
Content:
krodha wrote:
To reveal that phenomena have been unoriginated and unconditioned from the very beginning.

boda said:
You can observe this and consider it a fact?

krodha wrote:
Yes, non-arising can be experientially realized. That is what bodhi is.

boda said:
Insight into emptiness is not a cure for grasping, unfortunately.

krodha wrote:
Insight into emptiness is the only cure for grasping.

Unless one has directly and experientially realized non-arising, conditioned phenomena continue to appear as a result of ignorance. Ergo existent phenomena are perceived and accepting and rejecting occur, the three poisons in action.

The fact that you would claim insight into emptiness is "not a cure for grasping" is quite concerning.

boda said:
Dualism, essentially. Dualism is problematic only because we can't grasp impermanent things.

krodha wrote:
This statement is nonsense. You suffer precisely because you grasp at conditioned, impermanent phenomena to be real.

If you knew that said phenomena was not actually real, via insight into the non-arising of said phenomena, then the foundation for grasping would be severed at the root.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 4:40 PM
Title: Re: Monism, Eternalism, etc
Content:
krodha wrote:
Here is the sutta where Śākyamuni states he is not a human being:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.036.than.html


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 4:35 PM
Title: Re: Monism, Eternalism, etc
Content:
krodha wrote:
But no, pointing out that a self is a byproduct of delusion is not "nihilism" just as pointing out that a rope lying in a dark room is not a snake (in order to help someone who mistakes it for a snake) is not nihilism.

vinegar said:
Persons are not a product of delusion, buddhas are persons.

krodha wrote:
Persons are absolutely, hands down, byproducts of delusion. Buddha's are also manifestations of our delusion. Both sentient beings and Buddhas are illusory from the standpoint of ultimate truth.

As for a Buddha being a "person", technically, a Buddha is not what we would call a "sentient being." From the standpoint of our afflicted, karmic perception we see Buddha's as a person (just as we perceive other sentient beings), but this is not what appears to a Buddha.

I cannot recall which sutta states this, but there is a text where Buddha Śākyamuni is asked whether he is a person, or a human being, etc., and he says he is not.

vinegar said:
There is nothing wrong with being a person, and a denial of functioning persons is nihilism

krodha wrote:
The denial of persons on the conventional level is nihilism, sure... but no one here has made a denial of that nature. So I'm not sure what you're arguing against.

Your campaign to reject any statement that even remotely resembles a downplaying of personhood, selves, etc., is a common theme in your posts. Perhaps something to look at.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 12:24 PM
Title: Re: Monism, Eternalism, etc
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
When something is "empty",  doesn't that mean it is empty of inherent existence ?

krodha wrote:
This is primarily the Gelug definition.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
That it can not exist without depending on something else ?

krodha wrote:
Dependent existence [parabhāva], i.e., "things that cannot exist without depending on something else" is actually a view that does not accord with emptiness... and is in fact a guise for svabhāva, which is the antithesis of emptiness.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
A tree is empty because it is dependant on causes and conditions for it to arise :  Seed, soil, sunlight, air,water, etc.

krodha wrote:
This would be a coarse and materialist example of dependent existence, but it does not really correspond to emptiness.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
Form is emptiness (dependant on causes and conditions)
Emptiness is form

krodha wrote:
This saying is meant to communicate that emptiness should not be sought as something separate from form, appearance, matter, etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 11:34 AM
Title: Re: Monism, Eternalism, etc
Content:
boda said:
What do you believe the "intention" of emptiness is??

krodha wrote:
To reveal that phenomena have been unoriginated and unconditioned from the very beginning.

boda said:
I would not call it intention, but the teaching suggests that grasping is unwise, essentially.

krodha wrote:
Sure, yet without insight into emptiness, grasping is unavoidable because the perception of conditioned entities that can be accepted and rejected is all one knows.

boda said:
And yes, emptiness means phenomena are free from the extremes of existence and non-existence, including any combination of the two.
This qualifies as goofy (harmlessly eccentric) in my estimation.

krodha wrote:
Freedom from the four extremes is a staple view of Mahāyāna. Certainly nothing I have fabricated, in a "harmlessly eccentric" manner or otherwise.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 10:48 AM
Title: Re: Monism, Eternalism, etc
Content:
krodha wrote:
It more accurately means that phenomena are (i) non-arisen, (ii) free from extremes, (iii) dependently originated or (iv) lacking inherency.

All of which are synonyms.

boda said:
Of course emptiness means all sorts of goofy things to people, but the essential observable fact is impermanence.

Free from extremes?

krodha wrote:
None of those definitions are "goofy things" and all are standard.

Impermanence is really not a definition that captures the meaning or intention of emptiness at all.

And yes, emptiness means phenomena are free from the extremes of existence and non-existence, including any combination of the two.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: Monism, Eternalism, etc
Content:
boda said:
Actually emptiness is expressed in everything and in every instant. Emptiness does not mean "mere nothingness." It merely means that all things are impermanent, essentially. We all observe this all the time..

krodha wrote:
Emptiness means more than just "impermanence".

It more accurately means that phenomena are (i) non-arisen, (ii) free from extremes, (iii) dependently originated or (iv) lacking inherency.

All of which are synonyms.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Monism, Eternalism, etc
Content:
krodha wrote:
Of course we can say in a conventional sense that John Doe or Mary Smith are deluded. We do not deny conventional selves. But the idea that those names have actual referents is absolutely denied.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Monism, Eternalism, etc
Content:
Kaccāni said:
The notion of a self is an illusion.

vinegar said:
Nope, a negation of a self, a person, is nihilism.

krodha wrote:
Holding to the view that there is no self of any stripe, even conventionally, and allowing that view to corrupt one's path and view in general is nihilism.

But no, pointing out that a self is a byproduct of delusion is not "nihilism" just as pointing out that a rope lying in a dark room is not a snake (in order to help someone who mistakes it for a snake) is not nihilism.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
krodha wrote:
The buddhadharma promotes monism? Feel free to give an example.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
The Ati Buddha ?

That's all there is .

http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/05/maha-ati-natural-liberation-through-primordial-awareness/

krodha wrote:
The adibuddha is simply the first being to attain buddhahood in a given time cycle. The principle does not suggest a monist view.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
Yes...so much confusion...you are/you aren't, blah, blah., blah...so many contradictions  & misleading disinformation (IMO)
Not everyone is a scholar or a genius to figure out what is the Ultimate truth or all the correct answers....
I find the best way is to just give up and walk away...and to not know, is to know....easy peasy....then let it all fall into place naturally/eventually...

krodha wrote:
No doubt a counterproductive attitude.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
PierreDeSuis said:
Well then in your view what is it that prevents liberation after awakening?

krodha wrote:
Afflictive karmic traces have not been fully exhausted, and ignorance has not been fully uprooted.

Essentially the twin obscurations (afflictive and cognitive) remain in tact.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 4:07 PM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
PierreDeSuis said:
I think this is a very common idea. I kind of wish it were true.

krodha wrote:
Luckily for you, you don't have to wish.

PierreDeSuis said:
Any teacher of Mahamudra would be wise to avoid this idea of liberation as 'uninterrupted extension'.

krodha wrote:
An unwise suggestion.

PierreDeSuis said:
If Loch Kelly really is a competent Mahamudra teacher then you should ask him about this very issue of what constitutes liberation.

krodha wrote:
Well, he isn't competent, nor qualified... so the issue resolves itself.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 8:47 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
There's also a lot of BS ,  under the umbrella of Buddhism

krodha wrote:
Such as?


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 8:45 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
What did Buddha teach about putting other religious beliefs down ?

krodha wrote:
Who is putting other religious beliefs down? Delineating what terms mean from system to system does not mean traditions are being criticized or put down.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
What does logic tell you if the big bang is true ?

krodha wrote:
Not sure how this is relevant to the topic.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
If this is all an illusion, then what's the difference between anything ?

krodha wrote:
The buddhadharma does not negate conventional differences.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 7:58 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
krodha wrote:
Dzogchen is buddhadharma.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
Ok...then "the rest" teaches BS,  and Dzogchen/Buddhadharma teaches non-duality....

krodha wrote:
"Non-dual" in the buddhadharma means something different than it does in sanatanadharma and other tirthīka systems.

In Dzogchen and Buddhism, "non-dual" means that all phenomena are free from the dual extremes of existence and non-existence.

It can also mean that conditioned phenomena [dharmas] are neither the same nor different than their unconditioned, non-arisen nature [dharmatā]. Hence dharmas and dharmatā are "non-dual."

But in Buddhism "non-dual" does not suggest monism like it does in non-Buddhist systems.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 6:10 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
Would Dzogchen fall under "the rest"  catagory ?

krodha wrote:
Dzogchen is buddhadharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
no, perenialism would say its dumb for them to argue because they're all saying the same thing, which they are not. But they are all talking about the same thing: the nature of reality. Each one describes it according to its perspective, but the nature of reality is beyond all attempts to delineate it once and for all with one or another system of concepts.

krodha wrote:
The definition of perrennialism.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
davidbrainerd said:
Just replace Brahman with emptiness, and violla.

krodha wrote:
Utter nonsense.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
isn't it comforting to know that the nature of reality is not beholden to Buddhists, Vedantins (and everyone else) arguing about which poetic metaphor best describes it?

krodha wrote:
A comforting thought for perennialists, perhaps.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
May I point out that this thread and its, admittedly not truly established, referent seem to be somewhat different at this point?

krodha wrote:
It's for the better.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
krodha wrote:
That said, obviously discussing the taste of sugar implies "ideas" regarding that taste, but the taste itself is not an idea.

Astus said:
"If a word and its referent are not different,
[The word] fire would burn one’s mouth;
If they’re different there’ll be no comprehension.
This you, the speaker of truth, have stated."
(Nagarjuna: http://www.tibetanclassics.org/html-assets/WorldTranscendentHym.pdf, v 7)

krodha wrote:
Right, I wasn't advocating for a truly established referent.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 3:53 PM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
krodha wrote:
That said, obviously discussing the taste of sugar implies "ideas" regarding that taste, but the taste itself is not an idea.

Sherab Dorje said:
Are you sure?

krodha wrote:
Are you unsure of this?

When you think "sweet" or even say the word "sweet" does a sweet taste suddenly manifest?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 11:27 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Totally dishonest reading, he never implied any "self" at all, outside of a few Tathagatagarbha sutras.

krodha wrote:
And even the tathāgatagarbha sūtras needn't be interpreted literally in that regard.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 11:01 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
davidbrainerd said:
Well I don't know about you personally, but the concept that everything is mere emptiness is certainly nihilism

krodha wrote:
It might appear that way to someone who doesn't understand emptiness... but in truth it is anything but nihilism, which is an extreme that emptiness negates.

davidbrainerd said:
and the concept that there is no spiritual reality is certainly materialism

krodha wrote:
I'm not sure what a "spiritual reality" is but it is certainly nothing I've ever addressed, much less rejected.

davidbrainerd said:
(even if the material is still being said to be merely emptiness).

krodha wrote:
You mean material is empty, yes that is true.

davidbrainerd said:
And I find it odd that the "everything is emptiness" and "there is no self, there is no soul" crowd can bring themselves to call Buddhism a "spiritual" path, since they don't believe in any kind of spirit, spiritual realm, or spiritual reality.

krodha wrote:
Well, the primary issue here is that you don't understand that which you are criticizing. Which makes for a bit of a mess. That coupled with your clear aversion for such principles does not appear to bode well for you understanding them properly anytime soon. And that being the case you can choose to educate yourself or continue to bandy about your misconceptions. I hope for your own sake you pursue the former... and if not for the sake of yourself, for this forum at the very least.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 7:58 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
davidbrainerd said:
(2) achieving liberation by reducing, getting rid of origination of the impermanent aggregates, by removing the cause (your craving) most obviously leaves you with the permanent you.

krodha wrote:
"The permanent you" is not a Buddhist notion.

davidbrainerd said:
The whole point of anatta is clearly to let go of all that is not you to be left with only your true youness.

krodha wrote:
Anātman is not apophatic theology and is not an underhanded endorsement for some sort of "true youness."

davidbrainerd said:
Buddha is always talking about letting go of what is not you and what is not yours, like in Mn22, never does he say "there is no self" or "there is no you",

krodha wrote:
Correct, because a conventional self is not denied.

davidbrainerd said:
and then you have those Mahayana sutras that teach Buddha Nature as a self.

krodha wrote:
They do so nominally. Certainly not literally. The "ātman" featured in such texts is a mere rhetorical device. The Buddha even states that such teachings are not for the immature and small-minded because they will be misunderstood.

davidbrainerd said:
Also you have the Dhammapada's statement (vs 323) to the effect "you do not ride elephants to nirvana; you ride your own well-tamed self."

krodha wrote:
Which just means you rely upon yourself. "Self" being used as a pronoun.

davidbrainerd said:
And also the other one in ch 12 "the self is the only refuge of the self."

krodha wrote:
I wouldn't trust that translation or the other you cited in the least. They sound quite loaded and indicative of someone seeking to affirm a specific eternalist narrative.

davidbrainerd said:
Buddha's teaching was MUCH closer to Jainism than what modern materialistic secular nihilist orthodoxy will allow.

krodha wrote:
Not really. Although if you think I've advocated for materialism, nihilism or anything along those lines you are sadly confused.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 7:25 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
Simon E. said:
What makes you not a Buddhist? According to Dzongkar Khyentse Rinpoche;

1) If you believe that anything, any aspect or concept is permanent.

davidbrainerd said:
So you have to believe enlightenment is impermanent, i.e. Buddha can become unenlightened again, or you're not a Buddhist? Aaaa. This point fails.

krodha wrote:
The so-called "permanence" of liberation is not the same as the alleged permanence of a sort of ontological entity such as a soul or an irreducible, universal pleroma etc.

The latter is what Rinpoche is objecting to. While the former is simply the end result of a subtractive process that exhausts a specific cause.

When you completely exhaust the cause by which something originates (or appears to originate) then the resultant cessation is "permanent." Permanence of that nature does not suggest an entity, but rather a cessation.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: Nagarjuna and Tantra - a Vajrayana point of view
Content:
krodha wrote:
This is why Buddhist logic is superior to something like Neo-Advaita, which constantly has to preface every statement made with an assurance that any action suggested lacks an agent. A tiresome and absurd commitment, no doubt.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 7:00 AM
Title: Re: Nagarjuna and Tantra - a Vajrayana point of view
Content:
anjali said:
Hmm. That doesn't sound quite right. Don't Buddhas exhibit non-deliberate spontaneous action? In which case, there is no agent, agency or volitional action for a Buddha, even in the conventional sense (although it may appear that Buddhas exhibit volitional action from a sentient being's POV). Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "in a conventional sense"?

krodha wrote:
I mean nominally. We can say X Buddha performed X action, or chose to travel to X location, and so on, but this means we are merely suggesting volition and agency on the level of convention, for the purpose of communication.

In terms of Buddhist thought, it is usually a given that conventional appearances and designations are mere inferences that do not refer to (or indicate) anything real.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
krodha wrote:
Liberation vs. awakening is not some sort of "idea"... and certainly not a notion I have fabricated.

Sherab Dorje said:
If you are not talking from experience, then you are talking about ideas.  Actually, even if you are talking from experience you are talking about ideas.

krodha wrote:
With awakening and liberation, the latter is merely an uninterrupted extension of the former, ergo if one has experienced the former, the latter is equally known to be plausible and legitimate.

That said, obviously discussing the taste of sugar implies "ideas" regarding that taste, but the taste itself is not an idea.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Nagarjuna and Tantra - a Vajrayana point of view
Content:
paganfear said:
Agreed but agency requires an agent and it seems that Buddhas and Bodisattvas in the Vajrayana sense have agency.

krodha wrote:
They have volition [cetanā] and so on in a conventional sense. But this does not require a truly existent agent.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2016 at 2:07 PM
Title: Re: Nagarjuna and Tantra - a Vajrayana point of view
Content:
paganfear said:
...but then it seems to me that he would actually be at odds with various fundamental elements of Vajrayana philosophy.

krodha wrote:
In what regard?

paganfear said:
That said, I've also read extracts attributed to Nagarjuna where he appears to reference esoteric knowledge and mantra.

krodha wrote:
There was most likely two Nāgārjunas. Ārya Nāgārjuna who authored the MMK, and then the Siddha Nāgārjuna who authored works such as the Bodhicittavivarana, Dharmadhātustava etc.

paganfear said:
I'm very interested to hear the opinions of both Vajrayana practitioners and Mahayana practitioners and feel the best way to do this is have two threads running simultaneously, one in each forum, to prevent a potential early stalemate between posters from the different camps.

krodha wrote:
There's no conflict if both the intention of Nāgārjuna and Vajrayāna are understood correctly.

paganfear said:
2. Is his deconstructive approach not both incompatible with and opposed to Vajrayana's use of mantra, prayers, ritual, the belief in a primordial Buddha (substratum),

krodha wrote:
The so-called "primordial Buddha" is not a "substratum". Vajrayāna does not promote a substratum apart from the ālayavijñāna which is afflicted and meant to be purified.

paganfear said:
the belief in returning entities with agency

krodha wrote:
All Buddhist systems accept rebirth conventionally. And rebirth does not require an agent.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2016 at 5:18 AM
Title: Re: Our Pristine Mind - Orgyen Chowang's new book
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I went to the thing he did there last year: http://www.vajrayana.org/events/35/
and it rocked my world.

krodha wrote:
Unparalleled vibrations.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2016 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
t means that instead of getting caught up in the illusion and talking about IDEAS like: liberation/awakening,

krodha wrote:
Liberation vs. awakening is not some sort of "idea"... and certainly not a notion I have fabricated.

Liberation means being liberated from cyclic existence via completely exhausting the cause for the arising of cyclic existence.

Awakening is simply the first instance of recognizing dharmatā.

If you're going to assert that one must be liberated in order to define liberation per the suttas, sūtras, śāstras and tantras (and discuss said definition of liberation), then this entire forum might as well shut down.

As for awakening, you asked me that last week in the other thread. I didn't answer. I don't like broadcasting my experiences or talking about myself.

Sherab Dorje said:
suffering, sentient beings, etc...

krodha wrote:
Like I said if we can't discuss suffering and sentient beings in this forum dedicated to the buddhadharma then we might as well close shop.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2016 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
If you can show me your "being", then I will show you my "liberation".

krodha wrote:
What does that even mean, Greg?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2016 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
krodha wrote:
When a sentient being awakens or is liberated, that incident occurs for them and not anyone else.

Sherab Dorje said:
You are speaking from experience, right?

krodha wrote:
Speaking from experience that I'm not liberated even though other masters have been? Certainly. That is your experience as well.

As for awakening, that is different than liberation. Yet still, when one is awakened, all beings are not awakened. The entire notion is absurd.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016 at 3:50 PM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
Matylda said:
When a sentient being awakens or is liberated, that incident occurs for them and not anyone else.

This is what you may believe in

krodha wrote:
If by "what you may believe in" you mean to say what is taught in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism then yes, that is the view I stand by.

Matylda said:
but it is NOT what zen masters taught..

krodha wrote:
Perhaps not what some Zen masters taught. But I wouldn't know, and nor do I really care since I don't practice Zen, nor does it interest me particularly. Plus this is the Mahāmudrā sub-forum.

Matylda said:
therefore considering the source of information I would say that this kind of faith is invalid. Otherwise we should agree that all the gret zen masters of the last 1500 were deeply mistaken.

krodha wrote:
They very well may be if that is what they believe. But, that's not my business.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016 at 3:11 PM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
Matylda said:
yes of course.. it is not literal in its meaning.. but only in the course of practice, experience and realisation one may understand under realised teacher..

krodha wrote:
Even with practice and experience, if one truly believes that all sentient beings awaken and/or are liberated at the same time as one's personal awakening or liberation, they are deluded and tragically confused.

Matylda said:
otherwise it may be very misguiding. Yes it is very late zen story but arousen from the very firm experience of realised ones.

krodha wrote:
Though obviously this was not their experience, ergo said statement cannot be interpreted literally.

When a sentient being awakens or is liberated, that incident occurs for them and not anyone else.

Otherwise when the first Buddha was liberated all beings would have been liberated and there would be no samsāra and no need for the buddhadharma whatsoever.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016 at 2:40 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Language
Content:
Tao said:
>Language is, by its very nature, dualistic.

Language (talked and thought) is the origin of dualism in mind.

krodha wrote:
In a sense, although if we want to be pedants—as many around here including myself like to be from time to time — we must acknowledge that Dzogchen is quite specific when it comes to how ignorance and duality arise. And language (imputation) is one of the very last parts of that process.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 15th, 2016 at 11:57 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
who's mistake?

krodha wrote:
Said error occurs in accordance with causes and conditions, which do not require a "who."

Yet if you need a "who" to assign error to you can say "you", "your mind" etc., insert applicable conventional designation as desired.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 15th, 2016 at 11:23 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
I guess he would prefer that the Youthful Vase Body had never busted out. What? Is he saying it was a mistake? What kind of nature of reality makes mistakes?

krodha wrote:
Any and every expression of ignorance is a mistake.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 15th, 2016 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
krodha wrote:
Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche's explanation for "all emotions are pain":

The Tibetan word for emotion in this context is zagche, which means “contaminated” or “stained,” in the sense of being permeated by confusion or duality.

Certain emotions, such as aggression or jealousy, we naturally regard as pain. But what about love and affection, kindness and devotion, those nice, light and lovely emotions? We don’t think of them as painful; nevertheless, they imply duality, and this means that, in the end, they are a source of pain.

The dualistic mind includes almost every thought we have. Why is this painful? Because it is mistaken. Every dualistic mind is a mistaken mind, a mind that doesn’t understand the nature of things. So how are we to understand duality? It is subject and object: ourselves on the one hand and our experience on the other. This kind of dualistic perception is mistaken, as we can see in the case of different persons perceiving the same object in different ways. A man might think a certain woman is beautiful and that is his truth. But if that were some kind of absolute, independent kind of truth, then everyone else also would have to see her as beautiful as well. Clearly, this is not a truth that is independent of everything else. It is dependent on your mind; it is your own projection.

The dualistic mind creates a lot of expectations—a lot of hope, a lot of fear. Whenever there is a dualistic mind, there is hope and fear. Hope is perfect, systematized pain. We tend to think that hope is not painful, but actually it’s a big pain. As for the pain of fear, that’s not something we need to explain.

The Buddha said, “Understand suffering.” That is the first Noble Truth. Many of us mistake pain for pleasure—the pleasure we now have is actually the very cause of the pain that we are going to get sooner or later. Another Buddhist way of explaining this is to say that when a big pain becomes smaller, we call it pleasure. That’s what we call happiness.

Moreover, emotion does not have some kind of inherently real existence. When thirsty people see a mirage of water, they have a feeling of relief: “Great, there’s some water!” But as they get closer, the mirage disappears. That is an important aspect of emotion: emotion is something that does not have an independent existence.

This is why Buddhists conclude that all emotions are painful. It is because they are impermanent and dualistic that they are uncertain and always accompanied by hopes and fears. But ultimately, they don’t have, and never have had, an inherently existent nature, so, in a way, they are not worth much. Everything we create through our emotions is, in the end, completely futile and painful. This is why Buddhists do shamatha and vipashyana meditation—this helps to loosen the grip that our emotions have on us, and the obsessions we have because of them.

Question: Is compassion an emotion?

People like us have dualistic compassion, whereas the Buddha’s compassion does not involve subject and object. From a buddha’s point of view, compassion could never involve subject and object. This is what is called mahakaruna—great compassion.

I’m having difficulty accepting that all emotions are pain.

Okay, if you want a more philosophical expression, you can drop the word “emotion” and simply say, “All that is dualistic is pain.” But I like using the word “emotion” because it provokes us.

http://www.lionsroar.com/buddhism-nutshell-four-seals-dharma/

http://www.lionsroar.com/what-makes-you-a-buddhist/


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2016 at 11:25 AM
Title: Re: Very clear statements about the Dzogchen path- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
Content:
chimechodra said:
Yes, but for someone who is studying with another teacher who also has impeccable lineage credentials and is someone with whom they have a connection with, it would make sense for them to practice the path according to their instructions first and foremost. What they read in an interview with Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche online can be helpful, but should not take primacy over the personalized intimate instructions of the lama, especially if they have zero connection with Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche or his specific lineage.

krodha wrote:
Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's comments are fairly universal to Dzogchen in general. No matter the teacher, they aren't going to deviate from the model he is discussing [i.e., basis, path, result].


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2016 at 11:20 AM
Title: Re: Very clear statements about the Dzogchen path- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Right, I'm trying to suss out why focusing on the knower is put forth as some unique property of "uncommon" Dzogchen, since it's found elsewhere,

krodha wrote:
Where else is it found?

Johnny Dangerous said:
maybe it's a context thing.

krodha wrote:
Most likely the case.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2016 at 7:47 AM
Title: Re: Very clear statements about the Dzogchen path- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
...it confounds me a bit as to the dichotomy between "common" and "uncommon" Dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
"Common" was defined as semde and longde.

"Uncommon" is mennagde, and the instructions regarding focusing on the knower pertain to the nyingtig cycle within mennagde.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2016 at 7:19 AM
Title: Re: Very clear statements about the Dzogchen path- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Interesting, but this instruction to "recognize the recognizer" is found in a bunch of places, including (I think) what here would be termed "common" paths...

krodha wrote:
Although ultimately "recognizing the recognizer" is a provisional step and not the main point. Leaving it there would render the exercise incomplete.

The purpose of placing the attention on "that which recognizes" is to gain insight into the nature of that noetic capacity.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2016 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Very clear statements about the Dzogchen path- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
Content:
Wayfarer said:
That's an interesting word, would you care to elaborate?

krodha wrote:
Some so-called "teachers" out there like Jax teach their students to relate to Dzogchen in the very manner that is being criticized by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche.

Some people jokingly refer to his teachings as "Jaxchen" because he surely isn't teaching Dzogchen.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2016 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Very clear statements about the Dzogchen path- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
Content:
Wayfarer said:
This passage resonates with me:
the great danger is when you just leave naked knowing as an intellectual understanding, that “In Dzogchen there is no thing to meditate upon. There is no thing to view. There is nothing to carry out as an action.” That becomes a nihilistic concept and is completely detrimental to progress, because the final point of the teaching is conceptlessness, being beyond intellectual thinking. Yet, what has happened is that you have created an intellectual idea of Dzogchen and hold on to that idea very tightly. This is a major mistake but it can happen. So, it is very important to bring the instruction into personal experience through the oral guidance of a teacher. Otherwise, simply to have the idea: I am meditating on Dzogchen, is to completely miss the point.

krodha wrote:
The definition of Jaxchen.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Ch. NN able to maintain only 3 seconds of natural state during daily life?
Content:
Vasana said:
This has been a very useful thread, thanks guys.

Krodha, could you explain how the four contemplations of Semde (nepa, miyowa, nyamnyid, and lhundrub) fit in to the context of distingushing between relative 'Rigpa' and 'rang byung rig pa'?

Afaik,you are saying relative Rigpa is present during the noticing of nepa and miyowa and that the experience of genuine Nyamnid is the onset of 'rang byung rigpa' if it's not tainted with dualistic vijñāna . Is that correct?

krodha wrote:
Yes that would be right. Recognition of the nature of mind occurs at mnyam nyid.

Vasana said:
How does the natural state differ from a brief moment of equipose? Is the natural state not also present in that brief moment of equipose to some degree?

krodha wrote:
An instance of equipoise [mnyam bzhag] is an instance of resting in the natural state. As mentioned by Malcolm, this is what makes Dzogchen special: there are practices that can bring about a clear recognition of dharmatā even prior to realizing emptiness.

The term gnas lugs really means something like "the way things really are" or "the actual way of things", so a knowledge of the actual way of things is what "natural state" is meant to convey. When resting in equipoise one is resting in a direct knowledge of the way things really are.

Vasana said:
I thought Tregchö was stabilizing the natural continuity of that same equipose and that realizing the experience of Lhundrub in Semde is in escence the basis of Tregchö since ka-dag and lhundrub are non-dual?

krodha wrote:
Lhun grub in sems sde is simply remaining in the continuity of that which is revealed at the time of mnyam myid. Which is again, resting in the so-called natural state.

Tregchö is indeed a means to cut through delusion to reveal our nature, and the state of tregchö is equipoise, is the natural state, is contemplation.

Tregchö is a means to realize ka dag, but to fully realize non-dual ka dag and lhun grub (i.e., ka dag chen po) one needs practices that manipulate the channels and cause visions to appear.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 8:15 AM
Title: Re: Ch. NN able to maintain only 3 seconds of natural state during daily life?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The editing window expired, will need to ask one of the mods to delete that section.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: Ch. NN able to maintain only 3 seconds of natural state during daily life?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
I don't want to continue this discussion publicly because there is restricted material. I would prefer if you deleted that part.

krodha wrote:
Which part?


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 7:10 AM
Title: Re: Ch. NN able to maintain only 3 seconds of natural state during daily life?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Sorry but need to continue the discussion here my pm box is full and I don't have time to go through and decide what to delete and keep at the moment.

MiphamFan said:
I am not talking about the gnas gyu shes pa, you are just assuming that I don't know the difference between that and rigpa.

Why don't you ask ChNN if he is just teaching people gnas gyu shes pa instead of rig pa when he teaches using gnas pa?
krodha wrote:
I don't have to ask him, he clearly states in the text "Introduction to the Practice of Contemplation" that the rigpa he is referring to in that context, is the gnas gyu shes pa associated with the gnas gyu rig gsum.

In the definitive view there is no movement or stillness because thoughts are recognized to be non-arisen.

MiphamFan said:
No he doesn't, read page 28-29.

krodha wrote:
The section on page 28-29 you are referring to is discussing the event of realizing the non-duality of gnas gyu rig gsum. That recognition would indeed give way to the definitive view.

His entire exposition is meant to get you to that point. But it does not start there, that is why he states on page 50:

When you have achieved released Shine [zhi gnas] and remain in the continuation of this state, you have finally become a Dzogchen practitioner.

Prior to that point, one is merely working with relative states of mind. The relative knowing of the mind discussed in the beginning is simply the clarity of mind, i.e., the dualistic consciousness skandha that perceives objects such as stillness and movement.

MiphamFan said:
Gnas gyu shes pa is nothing other than dran pa, according to Nyoshul Khenpo.
Now, Jigme Lingpa unfolds the practice in more detail. As we have explained, the mind may be still, there may be thought movement, or there may be the noticing of stillness and movement. These are the only three things that can occur in the mind. Sometimes our mind is still for a while, and sometimes there will be the movements of thoughts such as desire or anger; there will be neutral, positive, or negative thoughts. At this time, the “knower” (rig mkhan) of stillness and movement is what is known as “mindfulness” (dran pa).
In the text you quote, ChNN refers to this as dran shes.

krodha wrote:
Correct, and that is the relative rigpa that we start with as beginners, however it is not the definitive view. The rigpa or "shes pa" that knows stillness [gnas pa] and movement [gyu ba] is still a relative knowing, it has not yet recognized the nature of mind or phenomena.

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche discusses the difference I am pointing out very clearly:

In the case of stillness [gnas pa], occurrence [gyu ba] and noticing [rig pa], the word rigpa is used for noticing. Self-existing awareness [rang byung rig pa] is also called rigpa. The word is the same but the meaning is different. The difference between these two practices is as vast as the distance between sky and earth.

Tsoknyi Rinpoche elaborates on his father's point:

This early stage of knowing or noticing whether there is stillness or thought occurrence is also called rigpa. However, it is not the same meaning of rigpa as the Dzogchen sense of self-existing awareness [rang byung rig pa].

Great masters traditionally give something called pointing-out instruction, which literally means bringing one face to face with one's true nature. What is this nature that is being introduced? A practitioner of shamatha who has cultivated a sense of stillness to the extent that there is no longer any dividing point between thought occurrence and simply resting experiences a certain quality of knowing or presence of mind. This knowing is what the practitioner is brought face to face with - or rather, the very identity of this knowing as being rootless and groundless, insubstantial. By recognizing this, one is introduced to self-existing awareness, rangjung rigpa.

So here Tsoknyi Rinpoche is clear that there must be a recognition of the nature of the mind, or the mind's capacity to "know", in order for the true rigpa that is taken as the path [lam] to manifest. Prior to that one is merely working with a relative and afflicted knowing.

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche continues:

Being able to notice its thought-occurrence [gyu ba] and stillness [gnas pa] doesn’t mean one knows the real nature of this mind. It is simply the ability to detect when there are thoughts and when there is not the presence and absence of thought. This is called ‘knowing the character of the mind’. It is not knowing buddha nature.

Nyoshul Khenpo is describing that relative rigpa, which is a mere "presence" [dran pa] it is not wisdom [shes rab], because it does not know its state.

MiphamFan said:
The rigpa ChNN is teaching is recognition of the natural state, which underlies both stillness and movement:
You must understand that fundamentally all three states
are at the same level: the state of calm, nepa, is movement,
the state of movement itself, gyuwa, is calm, and rigpa is
pure recognition of your own state, that is present in both.

krodha wrote:
Yes, he is aiming at having the recognition of our state occur, but that is not what the rigpa he is initially discussing is. He even states on page 26 that the rigpa he is discussing is defined as "The recognition of the presence of this wave (of stillness and movement)." And in that same paragraph cites "nge-gyu-rig" a.k.a. gnas gyu rig, as in gnas gyu rig gsum, making the rigpa he is discussing, the gnas gyu shes pa.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 6:26 AM
Title: Re: Ch. NN able to maintain only 3 seconds of natural state during daily life?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
She directly quotes JLA there.

krodha wrote:
Is it Mutsuk Marro? I also trust her knowledge.

In any case. The vijñāna skandha in its afflicted dualistic form is not active in equipoise.

And from what I know thoughts do not arise in equipoise, the force of shes rab does not allow it. They begin to manifest once again in post-equipoise [rjes thob].


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Ch. NN able to maintain only 3 seconds of natural state during daily life?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Thoughts can still arise in rigpa, they just do not condition the natural state. As long as we have a consciousness aggregate, we still have thoughts.

krodha wrote:
If you are resting in contemplation, the consciousness aggregate [vijñāna] is expressed as primordial wisdom or pristine consciousness [jñāna], and so the "consciousness aggregate" is not active for as long as that equipoise persists.

Also, the so-called "natural state" [gnas lugs] is technically only apparent once the aspirant has realized emptiness, so unless one has realized ka dag via tregchö or third vision, the natural state is not something they are truly familiar with.

In any case, I stand by my assertions. My opinion on the matter is not based on what I've read. And that being the case I don't really care if people agree or not.

MiphamFan said:
You should read Admin's posts in the "Body and Universe" thread on JLA's forum.

krodha wrote:
I trust JLA's knowledge, not sure about the Admin.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: Ch. NN able to maintain only 3 seconds of natural state during daily life?
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
These are just words, you know.

krodha wrote:
Sure, however what they are describing is not.

treehuggingoctopus said:
Some will say that in the definitive view there is both movement and stillness but they are non-dual

krodha wrote:
Correct, this is another way of saying that thoughts are non-arisen. In the definitive view stillness, movement and knowing are non-dual.

treehuggingoctopus said:
others that there is movement or stillness but they are seen as non-arisen, etc.

krodha wrote:
The non-arisen part would be correct, but this would rob the stillness and movement of validity. And in truth there are other factors at play that prevent movement (thought) from appearing altogether. That coupled with the fact that wisdom recognizes the nature of thought, make it nearly impossible to say there is simultaneously stillness, movement and a credible knowledge of their non-arising.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Ch. NN able to maintain only 3 seconds of natural state during daily life?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
I am not talking about the gnas gyu shes pa, you are just assuming that I don't know the difference between that and rigpa.

Why don't you ask ChNN if he is just teaching people gnas gyu shes pa instead of rig pa when he teaches using gnas pa?

krodha wrote:
I don't have to ask him, he clearly states in the text "Introduction to the Practice of Contemplation" that the rigpa he is referring to in that context, is the gnas gyu shes pa associated with the gnas gyu rig gsum.

In the definitive view there is no movement or stillness because thoughts are recognized to be non-arisen.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Ch. NN able to maintain only 3 seconds of natural state during daily life?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
That's exactly what I said.

He says the space between thoughts is gnas pa, not Dharmakaya as some people claim.

Elsewhere, for example,  in Semde teachings, he teaches how to rest in rigpa with the experience of gnas pa.

Your original post claims that he says one cannot access rigpa in gnas pa, which is wrong.

krodha wrote:
It is not wrong. There are different uses of the term "rig pa". The rigpa that knows stillness (lack of thought) and movement (thought) is called gnas gyu shes pa, which is just a synonym for the clarity of mind. It is not the definitive rigpa that is synonymous with wisdom [shes rab].

When rigpa is presented as resting with stillness that is the relative rigpa of the gnas gyu rig gsum or "the trio of stillness, movement and knowing". In that context "rigpa" is simply being used to indicate "knowing"... but that species of rigpa is not wisdom.

Resting with that rigpa is a stepping stone and a necessary practice for most, but it is not the actual view.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Ch. NN able to maintain only 3 seconds of natural state during daily life?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
What he says exactly is that he remembered coming across a translation which said that Dharmakaya is the space between thoughts and one should lengthen that span. He said that is very wrong.

Space between thoughts in itself is just experience of non-thought (what he calls experience of emptiness), one can of course also rest in rigpa in that experience, but that is not dharmakaya. It is more important to learn to rest in rigpa even when thoughts arise because thoughts arise all the time.

krodha wrote:
There are different uses of the term "rig pa". The definitive rigpa that indicates a knowledge of our nature would still be absent if we are encountering movement [gyu ba] and stillness [gnas pa]. The relative rigpa that knows those appearances is called gnas gyu shes pa and it is not the definitive rigpa that Dzogchen is pointing to. It simply represents the mere "knowing" faculty of the mind, but it is deluded. Here is the excerpt where Norbu Rinpoche discusses the space between thoughts:

Also, some teachers explain we have the experience of emptiness [gnas pa] between one thought and the next thought. Particularly if you are practicing shine [zhi gnas] and becoming familiar with it, you can remain for a long time without thought. Then a thought arises. In general there is always and empty space between thoughts. That is the same as the experience of emptiness [gnas pa], that condition is emptiness [stillness, non-thought], and many people say 'The space between thoughts represents dharmakāya. That's why you do shine. You make that space larger and larger; if you make that dimension without thoughts larger then you are in dharmakāya and you can attain realization'. That is a wrong teaching, it really means dancing on the books of teachings without having any experience of real practice. 

That is not instant presence [skt. vidyā, tib. rig pa]. If you are not in instant presence there is no possibility of realization. If you make that kind of emptiness larger and larger, maybe after your death it will make the cause for obtaining the dimension of samsara called no form [formless realm], a part of the deva realm. This is a higher state of the devas, they live for thousands of years without having any form. That's the fruit of that kind of practice, but when it finishes they go to hell, because all their merits are consumed. So that is samsara, not realization. You must not go in that direction.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Ch. NN able to maintain only 3 seconds of natural state during daily life?
Content:
Kim said:
Whenever it is said that innermost awareness (which refers to rigpa in DL's quote) can be found between two thoughts, it is oversimplification. For a beginner or a seeker that is fine but to be exact it is not the case, as substrate consciousness is thoughtless. I believe this is the very reason why DL and Dodrubchen Rinpoche were of the opinion that making distinction between mind and awareness is difficult. Thoughts on this?

krodha wrote:
ChNN says the same thing: those who believe their nature is accessible in the space between two thoughts are individuals who are "dancing on books" without any real experience.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 7:56 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
conebeckham said:
Unlike, say, your blog, which reflects a complete lack of understanding of Dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
Yeah, terrible.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: Ch. NN able to maintain only 3 seconds of natural state during daily life?
Content:
krodha wrote:
I've heard Norbu Rinpoche make this point once or twice, but never with the specific time of "three seconds". Rinpoche simply said that even he is not able to remain in contemplation [ting nge dzin] at all times, so those who boast that they are resting in the natural state (a synonym for contemplation) at all times are not being honest with themselves and others, either purposefully or simply due to ignorance of what contemplation, or equipoise, actually entails.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 9:50 AM
Title: Re: Unity of Buddhas
Content:
krodha wrote:
Dharmakāya is "one" because the nature of my mind and the nature of your mind are not different, and the buddhahood that results from a total realization of that wisdom is not different.

But it is also not the same, in that we're sharing a single continuum or something. The idea of a transpersonal continuum is where one goes wrong with understanding unity in terms of dharmakāya.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 9:38 AM
Title: Re: Unity of Buddhas
Content:
tomamundsen said:
That website you are referencing, "What Buddhists Believe," is known to be authored by someone who maintains some fringe views on Mahayana Buddhism.

krodha wrote:
Their understanding and interpretation is "fringe" because they treat Buddhism like Advaita and dharmakāya like Brahman. That is where they are off in their comprehension.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, July 18th, 2016 at 2:14 PM
Title: Re: Does practicing 4 visions in a lucid dream trigger something akin to bardo of dharmata?
Content:
krodha wrote:
"Something akin" to the bardo of dharmatā will be encountered whether dreaming or awake.

These are things you should be asking your teacher about though.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 14th, 2016 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: How to drop effort
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Sure, that's great. It's  a practical question though, not a puzzle or exercise in theory, since so many Dzogchen and Mahamudra teachings/teachers talk about this, clearly it is something important, i'm just wondering how people actually expereince this, and what their advice is.

Great stuff so far.

krodha wrote:
Effort is only abandoned while resting in the equipoise that results from a direct recognition of one's nature.

There is a saying, which states that the practitioner must chase the meditation until the meditation chases the practitioner. Until a level of familiarization is reached where the meditation chases the practitioner, effort is necessary (primarily on the outset and at times of post-equipoise). The more that instances of equipoise occur, the more the reality of effortlessness is experienced.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 30th, 2016 at 10:21 AM
Title: Re: Adi-Buddha on Wikipedia
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Whereas non-duality suggests 'a unity which is not an entity' - not 'one as opposed to two'  but 'one' in the sense of being that from which multiplicity arises.

krodha wrote:
Though not in the context of Buddhism.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 27th, 2016 at 11:32 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Herbie said:
If you need Ju Mipham's words then you don't have the capacity for Tsongkhapa's Prasangika. Best then is to leave the Gelug forum. No problem, you understand? Just leave.

krodha wrote:
Bizarre logic and behavior.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 26th, 2016 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Adi-Buddha on Wikipedia
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
So what is the correct definition of Adi-Buddha?

krodha wrote:
Per Malcolm:

The so called adibuddha has an origin. He is called the adibuddha (first buddha) because he is the first sapient being to attain buddhahood in this world cycle, not because there is some primordial buddha who hangs out in eternal time without a beginning.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 26th, 2016 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Adi-Buddha on Wikipedia
Content:
smcj said:
It's Wiki. You don't like it? Change it.

Boomerang said:
I don't know if I have the credentials for that. I was curious to know if the article is 100% wrong, or 50%, 25%...

krodha wrote:
An ape with a computer and internet connection has the credentials to edit Wikipedia.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 24th, 2016 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: Luke Wilson tells Jimmy Fallon he looks like Chögyam Trungpa
Content:
David N. Snyder said:
Is Luke Wilson a Buddhist? Or does he just like that book?

krodha wrote:
He randomly came across the book and bought it on a whim because the thinks the cover photo of Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche resembles Jimmy Fallon.

Seems he read some of it in the time between buying it and giving it to Jimmy.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 15th, 2016 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style
Content:
krodha wrote:
My skepticism comes from critiques like this one, posted by Mutsuk on the vc forums. The translation clearly contains errors that compromise the intended meaning of the original exposition, and I don't see how said errors can be explained away with the proposition that an ambitious "freestyle" rendering of the original text was the ultimate goal:

Mutsuk Marro said:
Dowman really does not understand an inch of correct classical tibetan grammar. Let’s take the first line of the opening quatrain of the Yeshe Lama homage (just after the single-line homage to Kuntuzangpo/Ö Mingyurwa). The Tibetan says :

gang gi rang bzhin nam mkha’i dbyings ltar chos nyid bsam gyi mi khyab pas

No big deal at all in terms of figuring out the grammatical meaning. Literally :

— gang gi = grammatical artifice (see below)
— rang bzhin : nature
— nam mkha’i = sky + genitive case (= of the sky)
— dbyings = space
— ltar = like
— chos nyid = reality (dharmatâ)
— bsam gyis mi khyab pas = inconceivable ; lit. not grasped by thoughts.

Dowman renders that as :

The nature of every experience is like the vault of the sky,

Grammatically, « gang gi+whatever » is a classical construction which refers either to what comes before (in the present case the short homage to Kuntuzangpo/Ö Mingyurwa, that was understood by Sangye Khandro, although her rendering does not follow the structure of the text which is a first initial homage followed by a first quatrain of homage) or to the main object of the homage which is the same Kuntuzangpo appearing as the Primordial Protector in the last line of the quatrain. That is very classical. Dowman thinks that gang gi refers to « every » something and has to add « experience » to make some(?) sense while « experience » is nowhere to be found in this line.

Then the « vault of the sky » : the tibetan says : nam mkha’i dbyings which is literally the space (dbyings) of the sky (nam mkha’) simply or lazily rendered in some dictionaries as « space » when it’s actually a little more than space. In any case there is no trace of a vault in the original.

The worst in all that is that he links « inconceivable reality » (chos nyid bsam gyis mi khyab pas) to the next line, not either understanding the grammar of that next line.

So the line  — which could be rendered as « (You) whose nature similar to celestial space is the inconceivable reality » or anything similar provided 3 elements are taken into account : 1. you know that the line (and the whole quatrain) is addressed to someone (in this case Kuntuzangpo, which means you understand the grammatical role of gang-gi), 2. you understand that this someone has a nature which is space-like, and 3. you understand that this someone is (or has a) reality which cannot be grasped by thought — is rendered by Dowman as something which has practically no link to the original.

Indeed, I don’t see any of these 3 sense-bearing or meaningful (in the sense of full of a precise meaning) elements in Dowman translation. And without exaggerating, it is like this throughout the work.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 15th, 2016 at 10:30 AM
Title: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style
Content:
krodha wrote:
The following is a message Dowman wrote to Lama Tony Duff, after Duff challenged the accuracy of Dowman's translations:

Dear Tony, me ole fruit, rather than slag you off as they do in the the asuric bar-rooms of the lha ma yin, I would like to bring to your notice the English that most of speak, which is a flexible, fluid, impressionistic language, and the English that most of us try to write, which has at least seven levels of ambiguity, each level of meaning invoked by nuances of word choice and juxtaposition. Dzogchen texts likewise have levels and levels, and individual syllables and words cannot be pinned down fascistically with a single english meaning. To the contrary, context requires that a wide variety of synonyms and close synonyms are at hand to express the subtleties of the mystical verbal expression of Dzogchen.

So there seem to be at least two quite distinct ways of translation; the mechanistic literal method that provides a mirror image of grammar and syntax and uses the same equivalent word in every context, and the interpretive free method that seeks to invoke a cloudburst of invocative meaning in poetic english prose. The former requires a rationalistic code, similar to the one that you have designed, which the reader needs to become familiar with to gain full benefit; the latter hopes to stir a congruous impression that stimulates equal sentiments. Just look at Cleary’s translations of Chan and Taoist texts from the Chinese – they demonstrates the interpretive method at full throttle.

There is little point in detraction of one methodology by the other – they are as dissimilar as chalk and cheese – and, ok, sometimes neither of us gets it spot on. But although we may talk to different audiences don’t we both have the same aim?
You may note that I have left this group – I don’t see much Dzogchen or self-release going on here, more like Trumpish politics…

How does everyone feel about this idea of "two quite distinct ways of translation"? I personally do not see the point of an "interpretive free method", as in the case of Dowman's efforts, this allegedly intentional "loose style" often seems to lose the meaning the original text intends to convey. Curious to hear what others think.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 15th, 2016 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: Questions for hoseholders
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
Can the MOD'S please correct the title of this thread ...."hoseholders" sounds perverted....

krodha wrote:
I laughed when I saw that and was surprised it took this long for someone to mention it.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 7th, 2016 at 3:15 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 2
Content:
mossy said:
the night before the california primary, the media calls it for hillary and declares her the nominee before the "super delegates" vote. this is why i am glad we don't use "super delegates" in our primaries. no democrat will have the required amount of pledged delegates by the time the convention rolls around. so technically she IS NOT the nominee till the "super delegates" vote. i don't know how this is acceptable to democrats, the corruption is undeniable. if old bernie stays in the convention will be fireworks, can't wait.

krodha wrote:
Statement from the Sanders campaign:

It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgement, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee’s clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer.

Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination. She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then. They include more than 400 superdelegates who endorsed Secretary Clinton 10 months before the first caucuses and primaries and long before any other candidate was in the race.

Our job from now until the convention is to convince those superdelegates that Bernie is by far the strongest candidate against Donald Trump.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 5th, 2016 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: The real meaning of Madhyamaka and Yogacara
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
thats the way its supposed to be but theres reams of buddhists running around who think emptiness is the ultimate reality.

krodha wrote:
Seems you think emptiness just means one decides not to have a view about phenomena or things in general.

If this is the case you are incorrect.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 4th, 2016 at 3:51 PM
Title: Re: The real meaning of Madhyamaka and Yogacara
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Emptiness is a metaphysical view which can be useful as a metaphysical therapy (think of it as a metaphysical "auto destruct"), but eventually must be abandoned lest it make you "incurable".

krodha wrote:
Emptiness only becomes an "incurable" principle if one fails to experientially realize emptiness and instead clings to emptiness in an inferential or intellectual manner.

Meaning if one grasps at enumerated ultimate truth without realizing the visceral awakening of unenumerated ultimate truth. One would then be "incurable".

gad rgyangs said:
Dependent arising, on the other hand, is a physical, not a metaphysical,

krodha wrote:
It can apply to either context.

gad rgyangs said:
theory which arose in the past and has long been replaced by other theories (most recently by relativity, quantum physics etc), which will themselves eventually be replaced by other theories.

krodha wrote:
What? This makes no sense at all and demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding dependent origination.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 4th, 2016 at 8:24 AM
Title: Re: The real meaning of Madhyamaka and Yogacara
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
This pair, samsara and nirvana, do not exist. 
However thorough knowledge of samsara is nirvana.
this can only mean that thorough knowledge that the proliferations "samsara" and "nirvana" are nothing but proliferations is release from proliferations.

krodha wrote:
It means nirvāna is a total cessation of cause for the arising of samsara (the cause of samsara being ignorance [avidyā]).

Avidyā is uprooted via a recognition of the nature of samsara. With said recognition comes a knowledge of the nature of samsara, hence "a thorough knowledge of samsara is nirvāna".


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 4th, 2016 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
Also having issues.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 2nd, 2016 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: vidyadhara of longevity and immortal embryo
Content:
krodha wrote:
Four vidyādhara levels:

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Four_vidyadhara_levels

Seems you might be talking about a tshe dbang rig 'dzin or a "Vidyādhara with Power over Life".

It says that according to Longchenpa, this type of Vidyādhara is a yogin who has reached the path of seeing [first bhūmi].

From the link, Khenpo Ngachung states:

Those who have the ability to purify the ordinary body with the fire of concentration and transform it into a subtle body acquire the power of immortal life and are called vidyadharas with power over life.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 19th, 2016 at 10:30 AM
Title: Bhaviveka on Samkhya and Vedanta: New Book In The Works
Content:
krodha wrote:
New book due out in January 2017:

Bhaviveka on Samkhya and Vedanta: The Samkhya and Vedanta Chapters of the Madhyamakahrdayakarika and Tarkajvala

Synopsis:
For anyone interested in an epoch of almost unrivaled intellectual activity and debate in India, the sixth-century Madhyamakahrdayakārikā along with its auto-commentary, the Tarkajvālā, is an indispensable resource. This partly doxographical treatise, composed by the Madhyamaka philosopher Bhāviveka, is the earliest and most substantial work to present and critically examine Śrāvaka, Yogācāra, Sāmkhya, Vaiśesika, Vedānta, and Mīmāmsā in great detail. Bhāviveka’s text is of unique value in its attempt to identify a Madhyamaka approach to other schools of philosophy as well as in furnishing us with valuable information regarding early Indic systematic philosophy, including what appear to be extracts from original sources that are otherwise unavailable. Most probably it served as a Madhyamaka debate manual for those engaged in discussion with representatives of opposing philosophical schools. Bhāviveka’s treatment of Sāmkhya and Vedānta is of particular importance because of the scarcity of sources pertaining to the early formation and development of these systems of philosophy. The present book includes a critical edition and English translation of the Sāmkhya and Vedānta chapters of the Madhyamakahrdayakārikā and Tarkajvālā along with a historical introduction.
About the Author:
Olle Qvarnström is Professor in the Centre for Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Lund, Sweden.

https://www.amazon.com/Bhaviveka-Samkhya-Vedanta-Madhyamakahrdayakarika-Tarkajvala/dp/0674088492


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 19th, 2016 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Loppon Tenzin Namdak's opinion
Content:
Malcolm said:
My Bad, it was Dorje Pizza that was being given the smack down, not Jax (but he has the same idea...)

krodha wrote:
Jean-Luc did gave Jax a brutal smack down in Jax's yahoo group some years ago. Maybe you are remembering that.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 19th, 2016 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Loppon Tenzin Namdak's opinion
Content:
tingdzin said:
I too would like to hear some documentation of the claim that Lopon Tenzin Namdak disapproves of Tenzin Wangyal's books.

krodha wrote:
Fairly certain the main documentation is Jean-Luc's blog post(s) regarding the khyab rig issue.

Khyab rig, the pervading knowledge and it's real meaning:
https://khyungmkhar.blogspot.com/2012/06/khyab-rig-pervading-knowledge-and-its.html?m=1

Khyab rig, revisited:
https://khyungmkhar.blogspot.com/2012/07/khyab-rig-revisited.html?m=1

Khyab rig continued:
https://khyungmkhar.blogspot.com/2012/07/khyab-rig-continued.html?m=1

Khyab rig, the final word from Drenpa Namkha:
https://khyungmkhar.blogspot.com/2012/07/khyab-rig-final-word-from-drenpa-namkha.html?m=1


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 15th, 2016 at 2:07 AM
Title: Re: Fear or apparitions?
Content:
krodha wrote:
What do the apparitions do? Out of curiosity.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 12th, 2016 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: ye shes and jalus
Content:
RikudouSennin said:
What is a good english translation of the word Yeshe?
Timeless awareness is a bit repetitive.

krodha wrote:
Wisdom. Primordial wisdom. Pristine consciousness.

Ye shes is jñāna in Sanskrit.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 10th, 2016 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: Bardo of death may be a problem for becoming lucid
Content:
krodha wrote:
Though not pure land, I know in Bönpo Dzogchen for example, there are specific "landmarks" in one's practice that must be reached, otherwise there is not much hope of maintaining lucidity in the bardo of death or recognizing the bardo of dharmatā.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 5th, 2016 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Did we all fail at Dzogchen?
Content:
florin said:
No.The text addresses those who dont understand.And those who dont understand are practitioners  like us. Those practitioners are represented by Sattvavajra.
Therefore we have 3 sections.
1.Developing prajna through study
2.Developing prajna through reflection
3.Developing  prajna through meditation.
So again whoever tells you that it is only about the basis in itself without any instructions aimed at practittioners that want to practically apply the principles of section 1 and 2 is mistaken.

krodha wrote:
The point is that the absence of cultivation, progress, stages, accumulations, applications, purifications, paths etc., is only partially representative of Dzogpachenpo.

Like when Mipham delineates between the mode of reality [gnas tshul] and the mode of appearances [snang tshul].

In the context of gnas tshul there is no cultivation, progress, stages, accumulations, applications, purifications, paths. But in the context of snang tshul there is cultivation, progress, stages, accumulations, applications, purifications, paths.

There must be a balance in view, otherwise we cling to the idea of our nature and err into nihilism in negating cultivation, progress, stages, accumulations, applications, purifications, paths.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 5th, 2016 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: Did we all fail at Dzogchen?
Content:
florin said:
For now this is what i want to do.I feel great inspiration reading and studying these texts and my understanding of dzogchen has somewhat improved.Anybody who is familiar with them knows concretely the depth and the vast scope of these texts.

krodha wrote:
Then wouldn't you agree that it is important to note that the kun byed rgyal po is merely one facet and not the entire picture?

And moreover, because the text in question really only addresses the basis... the apparent absence of cultivation, progress, stages, accumulations, applications, purifications, paths etc., in the teachings of the kun byed rgyal po is only because the basis does not require these things.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 5th, 2016 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Did we all fail at Dzogchen?
Content:
florin said:
Well sometime i use the language people understand.
But words like "cultivation", " progress"  "travel through stages", " accumulations", "applications" , "purifications", "paths"  etc....have no place in the teachings of KG.


krodha wrote:
And why limit yourself to only the teachings of the kun byed rgyal po? Which as pointed out before, only addresses the basis.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 4th, 2016 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:


Malcolm said:
Rongzom states:

If is asked, "Do characteristics exist or not in appearances?,” [...]

tomamundsen said:
Where is this from? Looks like a worthwhile read...

krodha wrote:
The text is called The Black Snake.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 3:08 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 2
Content:
krodha wrote:
Sanders' statement on the primaries today:

I congratulate Secretary Clinton on her victories tonight, and I look forward to issue-oriented campaigns in the 14 contests to come.

“I am proud that we were able to win a resounding victory tonight in Rhode Island, the one state with an open primary where independents had a say in the outcome. Democrats should recognize that the ticket with the best chance of winning this November must attract support from independents as well as Democrats. I am proud of my campaign’s record in that regard.

“The people in every state in this country should have the right to determine who they want as president and what the agenda of the Democratic Party should be. That’s why we are in this race until the last vote is cast. That is why this campaign is going to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia with as many delegates as possible to fight for a progressive party platform that calls for a $15 an hour minimum wage, an end to our disastrous trade policies, a Medicare-for-all health care system, breaking up Wall Street financial institutions, ending fracking in our country, making public colleges and universities tuition free and passing a carbon tax so we can effectively address the planetary crisis of climate change.”


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 12:53 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 2
Content:
krodha wrote:
Bernie isn't out of this race right yet, especially if he slays in California, which he very well might.

That said I also have no interest in giving Hillary or Trump my vote, so count me out of this poll as well.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Clarity
Content:
krodha wrote:
This description from Tsoknyi Rinpoche is fairly clear:

Sometimes I say emptiness in the clarity and sometimes emptiness in the appearance. These mean exactly the same thing because emptiness is emptiness in each case and because the clarity part and the appearance part come down to the same meaning. Clarity is the knower and appearances are what it knows.

Now, when we do not know this emptiness and appearance we stay in duality and staying in duality we are confused. The definition of confusion is: "Not directly seeing the actuality of things."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 4th, 2016 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: The Perfectly Imperfect Beyond Perfection/Imperfection (Zen) Buddha
Content:
jundo cohen said:
"Buddhahood" in most of the Zen traditions is something one already has and is but simply may not realize, not something we become.

krodha wrote:
You mean all sentient beings possess an innately unconditioned Buddha nature. That isn't a view exclusive to zen.

That said, no Buddhist view says sentient beings already possess "buddhahood".

Buddha nature and buddhahood are two different things.

jundo cohen said:
One might say that this is an "otherworldly" kind of immanent Buddhahood,

krodha wrote:
It isn't. The idea of Buddha nature is standard fare for Mahāyāna systems.

jundo cohen said:
We are perfect Buddhas all along,

krodha wrote:
True, but meaningless unless we discover that perfect nature and become familiar with it through practice.

jundo cohen said:
Because of this, attaining the "Bhumis" was not treated in quite the same way as in other corners of the Mahayana. There is nothing to attain that has not been attained all along, no need of improvement because nothing lacking.

krodha wrote:
This is the same for all Mahāyāna. The bhūmis aren't "attainments".

What is lacking is a knowledge of your nature.

jundo cohen said:
Even the "perfection of Buddhahood" might be a kind of "perfection of Emptiness" which transcends small human judgments and distinctions of "perfection vs. imperfection". Even all the seeming imperfections of Samsara are now witnessed as shining inherently in the light of Buddha, and the "imperfections" truly are not just "imperfections" when newly seen as the Perfection and Purity of Buddha that sweeps in all small human measures of "perfection vs. imperfection, pure vs. impure, etc".

krodha wrote:
The people you "teach" must eat that rhetoric up. I'm not impressed.

jundo cohen said:
It is late here, but I will provide some more detailed sources and quotes.

krodha wrote:
To be blunt, I wouldn't bother. You aren't bringing anything original or novel to the table that deviates from the standard Mahāyāna view at all. I don't think you understand the nuances involved with my argument.

jundo cohen said:
Oh, and Shikantaza is not about attaining Jhana, but just sitting in and as the total completion of Buddha.

Gassho, Jundo

krodha wrote:
"Jñāna" not "jhana".


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 4th, 2016 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: The Perfectly Imperfect Beyond Perfection/Imperfection (Zen) Buddha
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
The whole "Awakening to instant buddhahood" (which is not just a Zen concept) seems to overlook the fact that the person that seems to us to just "get it" out of the blue, has probably spent immeasurable previous lives practicing and struggling to reach this outcome in this present life.

krodha wrote:
In addition to this point, which I agree is overlooked, it is said that there hasn't been a practitioner like that for centuries.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 3rd, 2016 at 12:47 PM
Title: Re: Was denied recorded teachings, thoughts and emotions run wild
Content:
krodha wrote:
Honestly, that is a bit strange they wouldn't share the recordings with you. Especially since you've been attending the meetings in person.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
you cant mix and match: you can either say the mind and the willow tree in the garden both exist, or you can say that they both don't exist, but you cant say there is a thing called "mind" which has certain qualities, but the thing called "the willow tree in the garden" does not have those same qualities and is only a projection. thats simply blatant mindism, AKA reification. Im not saying the willow tree in the garden has a mind or rigpa, just that it has the same qualities (empty and spontaneously present) as your posited minds. And the basis of both of them, and everything else, is what is called gzhi in Dzogchen parlance. This gzhi is not the mind, nor is it the willow tree. It is not emptiness, clarity, or in the inseparability of emptiness and clarity. It is no "thing", nor is it "nothing", but when an empty and clear mind discovers it, that mental event is called rigpa.

krodha wrote:
You view the gzhi like a Vedantic purusa.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 1st, 2016 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:
krodha wrote:
Awakening to instant buddhahood is essentially unheard of

Astus said:
from http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/library/key_terms/pdf/key_terms04.pdf:

the Sotoshu doctrine is to realize (joto) shikantaza (just sitting) and sokushin zebutsu (the mind itself is Buddha).
In “Gakudo Yojinshu” (“Points to Watch in Practicing the Way”), joto is explained by Dogen Zenji as follows:

Joto (realizing) is to directly realize Buddhahood with this body-mind. In other words, it is not to change the former state of body-mind into some other special state but just to follow the realization of the other (one’s teacher). It is called jikige (right here) or joto.

The fundamental Sotoshu teaching is that of realizing Buddhahood through shikantaza and sokushin zebutsu in each moment. Therefore sokushin zebutsu, as well as shikantaza, is a very important term and a basic teaching for Soto Zen Buddhists.

krodha wrote:
This is just a colorful way to state that "buddhahood" as such, is an inborn quality, within one's "body-mind", and isn't to be acquired elsewhere. Pretty standard fare.

In my opinion, that passage isn't saying that one awakens to fully omniscient buddhahood in one fell swoop. Just that the reality of what buddhahood entails is directly encountered through awakening [bodhi].

But we may have to agree to disagree.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 1st, 2016 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:
krodha wrote:
The bodhisattva path begins with the direct realization championed by Dogen.

Astus said:
Where is that assertion from? Dogen is fairly clear that zazen is complete enlightenment.

"The zazen I speak of is not meditation practice. It is simply the dharma gate of joyful ease, the practice-realization of totally culminated enlightenment." ( https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html )

krodha wrote:
Right, this just means zazen is technically resting in equipoise — a direct knowledge of dharmatā.

The first instance of bodhi is a complete awakening, but it is not fully omniscient buddhahood.

This idea that sentient beings are able to miraculously awaken to fully omniscient buddhahood in one fell swoop just because they practice zen is wholly unrealistic. The path does not dictate the capacity of the practitioner.

Awakening to instant buddhahood is essentially unheard of. I'm not sure where the idea that this is the case for zen practitioners, or any practitioners for that matter, originated from. A misreading of the principle texts, I would argue.

"Practice-realization" is simply resting in jñāna, which is unsteady and intermittent until the time of buddhahood.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 10:07 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
krodha wrote:
Speaking from experience doesn't require speaking about experience.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 9:59 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
OK good. so when you are perceiving the inseparability of emptiness and clarity, do you have the concurrent understanding "this is all there is"?

krodha wrote:
I'm not about to sit on an online public forum and discuss personal insights.

If you gave questions about experiences, insights and realizations you should ask a qualified teacher.

In this thread we've been discussing view, which is fine. Discussing experiences and insights is something different entirely.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 9:49 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
have you experienced any of this or are you just playing with words?

krodha wrote:
I don't speak about things I haven't experienced.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 9:29 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
the inseparability of clarity and emptiness is not the basis, it is the roadsign pointing to the basis.

krodha wrote:
Stong gsal dbyer med is the definition of the basis.

The basis is the unrecognized nature of mind.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 9:16 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
krodha wrote:
The "experience of emptiness" [gnas pa], (which is ChNN's terminology) is just a calm mind with no movement of thought. It is a relative state that can be achieved through śamatha practice and so on.

The "realization of emptiness" [stong pa nyid], that marks the first bhūmi is something completely different.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 8:10 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
krodha wrote:
The three types of phenomena that manifest on the path are non-thought or gnas pa (what Rinpoche has translated as "emptiness"), clarity and bliss.

He is warning not to grasp at that phenomena, or mistake it for something definitive, because doing so will cause one to deviate from the path.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
ChNNR sez:
those who are interested in the Ati Dzogpa Chenpo teaching and follow its principle must first of all train earnestly in separating nature of the mind, or instant presence, from mind. The principal reason for the need for this separation is to avoid the deviation and error that can occur when most practitioners apply the practice on the path, i.e. that of mistaking experiences such as emptiness or clarity for our real nature.
So: our real nature is beyond emptiness and clarity. That is the basis, and direct knowledge of that is rigpa.

krodha wrote:
When ChNN says "emptiness" in that context he means gnas pa, which is "non-thought", "stillness" etc.

He doesn't mean emptiness as in śūnyatā [stong pa nyid].


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
you cannot impute something which neither exists nor does not exist.

krodha wrote:
Right, because there is no such thing.

gad rgyangs said:
you can, however, impute multiple minds or bases,

krodha wrote:
Correct, which the system of Dzogchen does.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
"mind" is an imputation, a conceptual proliferation.

krodha wrote:
As is everything, including the basis. Which is why we can state that there is a nominal diversity of minds and bases.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
Malcolm said:
We don't need to discuss these things in terms of the two truths, because there is no separation between the two truths anyway.

krodha wrote:
Though I think bringing up conventional diversity was apt in the sense that gad rgyangs is struggling with the idea of universals and particulars.

Despite the fact that the two truths have no place in Dzogchen, it is still true that particulars are allowed a conventional/nominal status, while simultaneously being completely unreal.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 9:37 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
im not a fan of the two truths metaphor in general, but i find it particularly unhelpful when discussing the Dzogchen view.

krodha wrote:
Since the two truths are merely species of cognition, they map to avidyā [relative] and vidyā [ultimate].


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 8:09 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
if you pick one side of a duality, that is called "dualism vision".

krodha wrote:
Dualistic or "karmic" vision is simply the afflicted perception of conditioned entities that results from ignorance [ma rig pa].

But dualities and diversities are accepted conventionally in Dzogchen... and the only reason they are not accepted ultimately is because conditioned entities are byproducts of delusion that are fundamentally unreal.

gad rgyangs said:
"Universal" and "particular" are such a duality

krodha wrote:
Particulars are allowed a conventional status, while universals are not.

gad rgyangs said:
as is "sameness" and "difference"

krodha wrote:
Again, the basis is not the "same" because there is a conventional diversity of minds. The basis is not "different" because it is expressed the same way in each conventional instance.

Like the heat of a flame, or the wetness of water.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 7:42 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Dzogchen talks about the kun gzhi, but I dont think that is what Malcolm is referring to. He is referring to the concept that the basis is universal for all sentient beings, which he rejects, and insists that each sentient being has its own basis.

krodha wrote:
Right, each sentient being has its own basis.

gad rgyangs said:
As I already said, you can accept or reject both concepts but picking one over the other falls into one or the other of the two limitations that ChNNR mentions in the quote I posted.

krodha wrote:
An individual basis does not fall into either of the two cited limitations [sameness or difference] for the reasons I stated above.

A universal basis is rejected, outright.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
krodha wrote:
The only time the term "universal basis" ever appears in Dzogchen, is as a translation of kun gzhi, which is the conditioned, afflicted basis of delusion which stores traces, and is synonymous with ignorance [ma rig pa].

But that is something entirely different from the idea of an unconditioned, universal a.k.a. transpersonal basis that you are advocating for.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Conversely, you can say that the universal basis and the individual's basis are non-dual.

krodha wrote:
I'm not sure what "universal basis" you are referring to, since there is no such thing in Dzogchen, or any Buddhist system for that matter.

gad rgyangs said:
Finally, you can say they are both language and culture bound metaphors pointing to the nature of reality which is beyond all description.

krodha wrote:
This is akin to stating that the word "sweet" doesn't capture the direct, non-conceptual experience of the taste of sugar. It is a point that goes without saying and has no bearing on the topic being discussed.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
you can say "there is no universal basis" as long as you also say "there is no individual basis"

krodha wrote:
Individual bases are accepted conventionally.

A universal basis is not accepted at all, even conventionally.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
in Longsal 4 he says ... [Edit]

krodha wrote:
Right, our natures are not different because they are expressed identically in each unique instance, yet at the same time they are not the same because there is a conventional diversity of minds, each endowed with their own dharmatā.

This is because the basis, or nature of mind is a generic characteristic, like heat. Heat is not different because it is expressed identically in each instance of fire. Yet it is not the same because each distinct instance of heat is a separate and unique expression.

This is why dharmakāya is free from being one or many [and free from sameness and difference].


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Of course, but when you say (earlier in the thread) "There is no universal basis in Dzogchen", you are reducing the view to psychology. Its not that there is a "universal basis" in addition to our own bases, it is that there is only one basis, and it is beyond all characterization. You can say it is "nature of mind" if you want to be metaphorical, but then you can also say its the willow tree in the garden. Both make about as much (and as little) sense. As ChNNR says, the nature of the individual is the same as the nature of the universe. He does not say there is only the nature of the individual and no nature of the universe, as that would be solipsism.

If you say that you have your own basis and I have my own, and everybody has their own, then you are left having to explain what is the relationship between these "bases" and, in fact, you need to explain what is the "basis of these bases?", otherwise you have a bunch of self-existent monads floating around each with its own basis. Surely that is not what you are proposing?

krodha wrote:
Each mind has its own basis [nature].

There is no such thing as a singular, transpersonal, universal basis in Dzogchen.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:
Astus said:
So, in terms of goal, they likely agree. In terms of method, however, there is the difference between the gradual stages of the bodhisattva taught by Nagarjuna, and the direct realisation taught by Dogen.

krodha wrote:
The bodhisattva path begins with the direct realization championed by Dogen.

The bhūmis and paths simply convey a decrease in karmic obscuration and an increase in omniscience. Something a Zen adherent would also experience.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 29th, 2016 at 11:00 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
conebeckham said:
So, all experiences can be adequately linguistically expressed?

Herbie said:
yes.
conebeckham said:
Please adequately express the taste of honey to me,

Herbie said:
"tastes like honey"

krodha wrote:
Herbie, this is absurd logic.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Herbie said:
If rationality is the only capacity needed, perfect!

krodha wrote:
You've demonstrated that your definition of "rationality" is truly anything but rational.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Herbie said:
Theoretically, but this thread shows something different.

krodha wrote:
No thanks to you.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I put forth possible questions from the whole universe, all of reality and then some. So, you choose from all that. I leave it to you. Please correct me.

krodha wrote:
You haven't put forth any sort of statement to be debated.

jundo cohen said:
You said on another thread that you thought I would be "systematically dismantled".

krodha wrote:
Yes, absolutely.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Hmmm. No takers? I did not think that debating a little Zen fellow would be that scary!

krodha wrote:
You'll have to put forth an argument if you want anyone to engage.

Believe it or not people around here do not seek out debate, debate simply arises because incorrect views need correction and more often than not, those who require correction generally have no interest in going quietly.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 3:58 PM
Title: Re: Non Duality, its Function and Practice.
Content:
jundo cohen said:
...I intend to open a thread here in the "Open Forum" regarding which aspects of peoples explanations of Tibetan practice I consider to be "gibberish" and "pseudo-Buddhism "

krodha wrote:
You'd be systematically dismantled in such a brutal manner... would be hard to watch.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 11:59 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Similarly, if you separate  "ignorance" and "wisdom" into rigid separate, opposed, real categories  (except by acknowledging that you are doing so artificially and conventionally for ease of speaking) you are not following a Mahayana Buddhist path.

krodha wrote:
This is inaccurate.

Ignorance is an absence of wisdom, and vice versa. Even experientially, the mode of ignorance is vastly different than the mode of wisdom.

Separating ignorance and wisdom is not a view that contradicts Mahāyāna, or any Buddhist system for that matter, in any way.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 11:50 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
jundo cohen said:
As Dogen famously wrote ...
...And yet, if there is a hairsbreadth deviation, it is like the gap between heaven and earth.

krodha wrote:
The operative sentence.

jundo cohen said:
... Saving All Sentient Beings though Beings Numberless (and, anyway, what "Sentient Beings" in need of saving??)

krodha wrote:
The rest of what you wrote is just regurgitating basic insights from the prajñāpāramitā, but not even well... as you seem to err towards nihilism.

Negating ignorance and the need to remove obscurations is simply grasping at ultimate truth, which is cause for a nihilist view.

Errors and deviations in view that beginners make.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 7:21 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
Sure, it's probably the object to be negated for a child that thinks there is actually a moon in the puddle.

krodha wrote:
Due to our ignorance, we are actually much like children who think there is actually a moon in the puddle. However for us, this error applies to all phenomena.

Lukeinaz said:
Krodha, do reflections not appear to you?

krodha wrote:
An appearance manifests, yet I know there is no existent dharma present there. In the same way appearances manifest for a Buddha, yet a Buddha knows there are no dharmas present anywhere.

Lukeinaz said:
I am definitely missing the point so could you please fill me in.

krodha wrote:
The point of evoking the example of a reflection is to demonstrate how an appearance can manifest yet at no time actually create or serve to establish an actual entity. The appearances that constitute our so-called reality are the same way, yet we fail to recognize this.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
conebeckham said:
He is arguing that there is a reflection of the moon in water.
He's not taking the position that the reflection is the moon--merely that reflections, in water or in mirrors, exist because they are percieved and cognized.

krodha wrote:
Yes, a nonsensical position in my opinion... as fixating on the reflection itself completely misses the point.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
You must be kidding! Ask any person 'do reflections exist?' and they will say 'yes'. Why? Because they apprehend them with their valid cognizers. This is the very definition of existing, an object of valid cognition.

krodha wrote:
So according to you there is actually a moon in the water. Again, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 8:31 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Of course reflections exist. Cone and Malcolm don't think that they do though...

krodha wrote:
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone (apart from yourself it seems) who believes reflections exist.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Herbie said:
Either you dwell in irrationality of Nagarjuna or you apply Tsongkhapa's rationality.

krodha wrote:
You can't be serious.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
krodha wrote:
The point being made is that people are kidding themselves if they think they are resting in equipoise at all times, as only Buddhas do so.

Anders said:
actually, 7th stage bodhisattvas are in fulltime in that department.

krodha wrote:
From my understanding, 7th stage bodhisattvas have eradicated the afflictive obscuration and therefore have influence over birth. But that does not necessarily mean they are in non-regressive equipoise.

That being said I've also read of vidyādharas who have completely intermingled equipoise and post-equipoise, so I'm open to being incorrect that only Buddhas rest in equipoise at all times.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Matt J said:
What about the viewless view?

There are plenty of such discussions of philosophy in Zen. Even by modern Soto Zen masters, such as Tenshin Reb Anderson, Steve Hagen, and Taigen Dan Leighton.

krodha wrote:
The "viewless" view is equipoise.

The point being made is that people are kidding themselves if they think they are resting in equipoise at all times, as only Buddhas do so.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 14th, 2016 at 4:35 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Herbie said:
...the first and only philosopher who transformed the inconsistent writings of Nagarjuna and others into a rational philosophy

krodha wrote:
You can't be serious.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 7:44 AM
Title: Re: Path to Buddhahood in Chan/Zen
Content:
krodha wrote:
Awakening [bodhi] is sudden in every system.

The real controversy and question is regarding sudden, omniscient buddhahood.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 7:41 AM
Title: Re: Path to Buddhahood in Chan/Zen
Content:
krodha wrote:
If Hongzhou wants to pretend otherwise... not my problem.

tomamundsen said:
Eh, but the Ch'an forum is a place for people to discuss stuff like Hongzhou Ch'an. Generally on this Ch'an sub-forum, these are valid Buddhist teachings.

krodha wrote:
That's true, I'm just curious as to whether these allegedly unrealistic expectations and requirements set forth for aligning with such a system are legitimate.

There are Indian and Tibetan systems which also promote the "immediate", "no path" structure, but when it comes down to it they aren't literally saying they produce instant and omniscient Buddhas.

Does Hongzhou really claim this? Or are they being misunderstood?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: Path to Buddhahood in Chan/Zen
Content:
krodha wrote:
*Double post


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 7:02 AM
Title: Re: Path to Buddhahood in Chan/Zen
Content:
Temicco said:
With bodhi comes recognition of the emptiness of obscurations;

krodha wrote:
That is not how it works, unfortunately.

Temicco said:
How so? You'd be hard-pressed to find any Hongzhou source saying that there's anything to do after bodhi. How are you saying it works?

krodha wrote:
In the end it doesn't really matter what Hongzhou says. If they want to pretend they have a thriving lineage of what Tibetans refer to as "cig car ba" that's on them... nice fantasy.

The condition of sentient beings is what it is, the cause for arising and cessation of obscurations is what it is.

If Hongzhou wants to pretend otherwise... not my problem.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Path to Buddhahood in Chan/Zen
Content:
Temicco said:
With bodhi comes recognition of the emptiness of obscurations;

krodha wrote:
That is not how it works, unfortunately.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 19th, 2016 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: Path to Buddhahood in Chan/Zen
Content:
Temicco said:
But in Hongzhou Chan, it's asserted that no matter what your path is, awakening is always complete and in a flash.

krodha wrote:
Awakening [bodhi] occurs in a flash in every system. Bodhi is not buddhahood.

Temicco said:
They thus do say that it's incredibly rare. In what way is there still affliction to exhaust or more work to do?

krodha wrote:
Bodhi just means one has awakened to recognize dharmatā, but is not a removal of the two obscurations.

Temicco said:
I know of no Hongzhou text that supports that idea. The school leaves no room for people of lower or middling capacities;

krodha wrote:
Then it isn't a school at all, but rather just a club for cig car ba's. Not very realistic or reasonable.

Temicco said:
it's the one school I know of which doesn't even really support expedient means. Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi or bust

krodha wrote:
There hasn't been a practitioner of that ability for centuries... and that being the case I'm not sure how Hongzhou can pretend they have a lineage (this is, if your definition is accurate, which it most likely isn't).

You might very well be misunderstanding Hongzhou.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 19th, 2016 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: Path to Buddhahood in Chan/Zen
Content:
Temicco said:
I would have to disagree with the last few posts -- this isn't Dzogchen we're talking about. I'm principally aware of Hongzhou teachings, so perhaps there are other Chan doctrines which differ, but there is no post-enlightenment work in Hongzhou Chan. Huangbo repeatedly asserts that a single tacit understanding is all that is needed -- "in a single flash you attain to full realization." Linji says that "if you can attain true insight, clear and complete, then, indeed, that is all." There is no residual karma to exhaust; recognition of the nature of mind entails not only ending production of karma but also understanding karma's groundlessness. And besides, having things to do (i.e. post-enlightenment practice) seems antithetical to the teachings.

krodha wrote:
There's always more to do after initial awakening, always affliction to exhaust, etc... those who awaken directly to fully omniscient buddhahood are rarer than stars in the daytime.

Whether the system is Hongzhou Chan or any other doesn't matter. The system does not dictate the capacity of the individual or how ripe they are in terms of awakening. One cannot say that just because someone practices X path they therefore do not have residual karma to exhaust and so on... it doesn't work that way.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 11th, 2016 at 7:21 AM
Title: Re: Does the World Vanish?
Content:
krodha wrote:
This is also spoken of in the lower tenet systems, though not as explicitly of course. Take Nāgārjuna for example:

The object of knowledge in dream is not seen when one awakes. Similarly the world disappears to him who is awakened from the darkness of ignorance. The creation of illusion is nothing but illusion. When everything is compound there is nothing which can be regarded as a real thing. Such is the nature of all things. As the figments of a dream dissolve upon waking, so the confusion of Samsara fades away in enlightenment.
- Mahāyānaviṁśikā


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 9:31 AM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
krodha wrote:
This:
Malcolm said:
One might argue that Buddhology is just such a kind of surgery, but in general, in surgery, the surgeon has to be interested in saving the patient, and in the case of people like Jayarava, etc., I see no such interest at all. They merrily hack away at the body of Dharma, trying to remove what they perceive to problems and inconsistencies, blind to the problems and inconsistencies they themselves are introducing —— this is, in all cases, because they have not received a proper education in Dharma, and properly followed a master. There is no one more sad than a putative Dharma practitioner who has no master.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 9:23 AM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
Jeff H said:
I spent some time reading Jayavara’s article today, and I’d like to respond specifically to that. It helps me clarify my own thoughts on karma.

krodha wrote:
We already thoroughly established the last time you visited this forum that you don't understand Nāgārjuna, don't understand the two truths, don't understand pratītyasamutpāda, and therefore don't understand karma.

Jeff H said:
I was not here for the previous exchange that Krodha refers to, but I think Jayavara poses an interesting point here which deserves some discussion.

krodha wrote:
The gist of it involved Jayarava deciding that the two truths were untenable (in some whimsical fantasy he is living in) and then proceeding to blame Nāgārjuna once his expositions no longer make sense due to Jayavara's own butchering.

Jayarava gets roasted in the thread, which can be found here:

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=18846


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 8:07 AM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
Wayfarer said:
As I said above, and in this I agree with Jeff H, where I think belief in karma is deleterious is when it is used to rationalise misfortune or assign blame. It easily morphs into fatalism and indifference ('oh, it's their karma').

krodha wrote:
Karma, even in the context you are referencing, wouldn't correspond to the idea of fatalism because the role of intention [cetanā] is not negated.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 9th, 2016 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
Jayarava said:
Nāgārjuna notices this problem, but solves it by asserting that none of the components of the equation (actor, action, consequence) have any reality so that karma is an illusion, like a city of Gandharvas.

krodha wrote:
We already thoroughly established the last time you visited this forum that you don't understand Nāgārjuna, don't understand the two truths, don't understand pratītyasamutpāda, and therefore don't understand karma.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 7:16 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
conebeckham said:
When someone says homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice," I'm sorry, but I just stop taking anything they say seriously.

krodha wrote:
Agreed.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Was it holotropic?

krodha wrote:
There's a high probability you might be on some psychotropics asking a question like that.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Possibly of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit_stick

krodha wrote:
I was at your boo Pema Khandro's spot the other night for a friend's memorial service.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 6:23 AM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:
smcj said:
Have you taken a look at it? It's not Madhyamaka.

krodha wrote:
It is Mahāmudrā.

And even then, does not deviate from the intention of Madhyamaka.

smcj said:
I've been trying to make the point lately that terms mean whatever the author in question wants them to mean

krodha wrote:
Words and principles can take on different meanings depending on context, sure. Still tathāgatagarbha does not indicate a gzhan stong view in contexts other than gzhan stong.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:
smcj said:
As I said, there is controversy regarding the authorship. However it is not conceded by all parties to be two different authors.

krodha wrote:
Which doesn't matter. If some people want to believe that Ācarya Nāgārjuna was hundreds of years old that's on them, but doesn't make rational sense when it comes down to it.

smcj said:
The Karmapas have been Shentongpas. They may have each put their individual spin on it, but they were variations on a theme. Plus Brunnhölzl makes it clear that the Tathagatagarbha is Shentong in the quoted text.

krodha wrote:
The point is that the Dharmadhatustāva is not a gzhan stong text, if gzhan stong pas want to put their spin on it and interpret it as such, that's fine, but their interpretation is not indicative of the intention of the text. Also, tathāgatagarbha does not equal gzhan stong.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:
smcj said:
In the aforementioned Nagarjuna text... it is interpreted in a Shentong way.

krodha wrote:
You're really reaching there.

smcj said:
Not according to the translator Brunnhölzl. It's completely different than Nagarjuna's other works, hence the school of thought that someone else actually wrote it.

krodha wrote:
That is because the Siddha Nāgārjuna wrote it... not Ācarya Nāgārjuna.

Still, it has nothing to do with gzhan stong and is pretty standard fare as far as views on emptiness and the nature of mind/reality go.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:
smcj said:
In the aforementioned Nagarjuna text... it is interpreted in a Shentong way.

krodha wrote:
You're really reaching there.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 9:00 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
smcj said:
The only reconciliation is in experiential equipoise.
...which is beyond words completely, rendering any way of presenting it as defective. So it becomes a matter of preferred approximation, doesn't it?

krodha wrote:
Which again, is not the point. And yet this goes for anything, even describing the taste of sugar.

In the end the issue I took was the suggestion that because wisdom is considered to be truly established in gzhan stong, that it is ok to then approach and view other principles such as tathāgatagarbha, dharmadhātu, cittatā, etc., as also truly established regardless of context.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 8:44 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Imperialistic intentions rooted in perennialist aspirations are what's controversial.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 8:42 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
smcj said:
If Shentong doesn't sit well with somebody, that's ok. It should not even be controversial on the level of discussion.

krodha wrote:
Gzhan stong isn't controversial at all.

It is what it is, in its own context.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 8:39 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The point isn't whether these teachers have gzhan stong interests in the context of sūtra, which is the only context it is relevant.

Gzhan stong has nothing to do with Dzogchen, and approaching Dzogchen from the standpoint of gzhan stong and trying to filter it through that position will only obfuscate Dzogchen, same goes for gzhan stong.

A lot of people feel the need to establish some sort of perennialism with views, even within the buddhadharma, and this makes for problems. Gzhan stong should be allowed to be gzhan stong, Dzogchen allowed to be Dzogchen, there's no need to import one into the other, or reconcile the two.

The only reconciliation is in experiential equipoise.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 8:17 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
conebeckham said:
You should look up the Karmai Nyingthink, Krodha.

krodha wrote:
The Karmai Nyingthig is the Karma Kagyu Dzogchen cycle? Like the Yang Zab is to Driking?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 7:58 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
smcj said:
I think perhaps if the discussion were narrowed down to specifically the Karma Kagyu view as pertains to Dzogchen, then I think it would probably be appropriate.

krodha wrote:
Last time I checked the Karma Kagyu has nothing to do with Dzogchen. And the only Kagyu sect that has Dzogchen, the Drikung, tows the standard line as far as view. They do not step outside of the traditional Dzogchen presentation.

conebeckham said:
You should look up the Karmai Nyingthink, Krodha.  Dzogchen has been a part of Karma Kagyu lineage since at least the 3rd Karmapa's time, when this Nyingthig lineage was revealed.  And, frankly, Karma Pakshi was definitely familiar with Dzogchen, and even Milarepa knew a thing or two about Dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
Yet do they warp the view of Dzogchen and filter it through a gzhan stong lens, like smcj is suggesting?

In the end it is smcj's gzhan stong imperialism that is the issue.

The concept of context appears to be lost on him.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 7:56 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The idea that the nature of mind and dhatu (spacious expanse or element), dhatu and awareness, clarity and emptiness, bliss and emptiness, dharmata, and tathāgatagarbha have absolute and true existence is not a controversial position given that such a position has no doctrinal basis whatsoever and is merely a colorful theory of your own design.

conebeckham said:
Not really.  There was a whole school of Buddhist thinkers who argued for the absolute existence of mind.  But you knew that, right?

krodha wrote:
I know that the fact that parikalpita ends up as an existent principle in Yogācāra is true, but I'm not sure if that is the intention of Yogācāra, or moreso a consequence of their model.

I get that gzhan stong states that the three kayas are truly existent and fully formed from the very beginning, an absurd view in my opinion, but this does not mean one can take that view and project it onto other principles, that was my point. That doing so would be reckless and an error not doubt.

Not even I am doing that. I don't agree with gzhan stong, but I would never project Dzogchen or Prasanga onto gzhan stong... smcj was suggesting that doing the reverse is acceptable.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
smcj said:
I think perhaps if the discussion were narrowed down to specifically the Karma Kagyu view as pertains to Dzogchen, then I think it would probably be appropriate.

krodha wrote:
Last time I checked the Karma Kagyu has nothing to do with Dzogchen. And the only Kagyu sect that does have Dzogchen, the Drikung, tows the standard line as far as view. They do not step outside of the traditional Dzogchen presentation.

smcj said:
Also Dudjom R.'s presentation of Dzogchen is the "Great Madhyamaka" view.

krodha wrote:
No, it isn't.

Again, gzhan stong is not "great Madhyamaka" I get that you like to call it that because it makes you feel more secure in your allegiance to gzhan stong, but gzhan stong is not mahamadhyamaka, as has been demonstrated numerous times.

Secondly, Dudjom Rinpoche may have preferred gzhan stong in the context of sutra, but he never conflated it with Dzogchen.

smcj said:
Other teachers and schools will disagree.

krodha wrote:
Not likely since it is a non-issue from the very start.

smcj said:
However if practitioners from various schools and views can all accomplish the result, then how important is it to subscribe to a view on this at all?

krodha wrote:
That isn't the point.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 7:42 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
smcj said:
On the next page he gives a list of synonyms: non-dual Wisdom Mind, the Clear Light ( prabhasvara ) Nature of Mind and dhatu (spacious expanse or element), dhatu and awareness, clarity and emptiness, bliss and emptiness, dharmata, and tathagatagarbha. So I guess you could say that since all those terms refer to the same thing, that they are all considered to have "absolute and true existence".

krodha wrote:
One can conclude many things, however that particular conclusion would no doubt be reckless and disastrous.

smcj said:
I'd prefer to characterize it as controversial.

krodha wrote:
The idea that the nature of mind and dhatu (spacious expanse or element), dhatu and awareness, clarity and emptiness, bliss and emptiness, dharmata, and tathāgatagarbha have absolute and true existence is not a controversial position given that such a position has no doctrinal basis whatsoever and is merely a colorful theory of your own design.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
smcj said:
On the next page he gives a list of synonyms: non-dual Wisdom Mind, the Clear Light ( prabhasvara ) Nature of Mind and dhatu (spacious expanse or element), dhatu and awareness, clarity and emptiness, bliss and emptiness, dharmata, and tathagatagarbha. So I guess you could say that since all those terms refer to the same thing, that they are all considered to have "absolute and true existence".

krodha wrote:
One can conclude many things, however that particular conclusion would no doubt be reckless and disastrous.

smcj said:
Anyway Khenpo Tsultrim's presentation is pretty much the current Karma Kagyu position. Plus Khenpo Tsultrim relates it to Dzogchen too.

krodha wrote:
Given that he clearly sings a different tune when he teaches Dzogpachenpo, as he should, your suggestion that his gzhan stong position applies to Dzogchen is unfounded.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
smcj said:
It's a Karma Kagyu term used in their Shentong teachings.

krodha wrote:
Wisdom-mind is just another term for wisdom [tib. ye shes, skt. jñāna]. All Buddhist traditions teach of jñāna, it isn't a "gzhan stong thing" or a "karma kagyu thing" anymore than it is part and parcel to any and every other system.

Wisdom isn't being contested, but rather its status as "existent".


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
smcj said:
However, as a Shenotongpa, I can say that the "Wisdom Mind" exists since it is not subject to Madhyamaka deconconstruction.

Right?

krodha wrote:
If your so-called "wisdom mind" exists then it is conditioned by definition, and therefore isn't much of a "wisdom mind".


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
While much attention has been devoted to explaining the nature of the ultimate truth in view of its special soteriological role, less has been paid to understanding the nature of conventional truth, which is often described as "deceptive," "illusion," or "truth for fools. But conventional truth is nonetheless truth.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Wayfarer. The Cowherds, eh? They should start a band ...

krodha wrote:
A conventional truth is something that can be relied upon to appear consistent as long as it is not investigated. When investigated it cannot withstand scrutiny, because it is merely inferential. Not sure how one would conclude that such a thing is "nonetheless truth".

Water moons, mirages and images in dreams are not found to be true when investigated, conventional inferences are likewise not true when investigated.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 10:23 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
I understand. But I am wary of dismissing conventional truth as somehow "less than" ultimate truth. I don't think that's what Buddha had in mind when he came up with the two truths.

krodha wrote:
The "two truths" are relative and ultimate. Conventional truth is a subset of relative truth, but is not technically one of the two truths. The two truths are species of cognition.

Conventional truth is simply the nominal titles that are attributed to alleged "things". Conventions can also be things like gestures, customs, ethics, esthetic tastes, norms and standards, rules, laws, fashion, language as a whole, teachings and traditions, etc. but even in the context of the two truths, relative truth is merely the appearance of conditioned entities which are byproducts of ignorance, and conventions are secondary designations that are then imputed onto those allegedly conditioned entities.

rachmiel said:
Here's how I see it, based on my emptiness studies:

Things exist, both conventionally and ultimately.

krodha wrote:
Again, a "conventional truth" is something that appears to be valid yet cannot withstand ultimate analysis. If something cannot bear ultimate analysis, meaning: it cannot be found when sought, then the idea that such a thing "exists" in any sense of the notion is nothing short of a fantasy.

And since so-called "ultimate truth" is a cognition of the non-arising of the allegedly conditioned entities which manifest due to our delusion, the idea that something exists ultimately is also untenable.

rachmiel said:
Conventionally things appear to exist from their own side, i.e. inherently.

krodha wrote:
What you mean to say is that from the standpoint of so-called relative truth, conditioned entities appear to be established, i.e., existent. And therefore the conventional designations that are imputed onto said entities are mistaken as referring to truly established persons, places, things, etc. Meaning, the designation "car" appears to actually refer to an object.

rachmiel said:
Ultimately, things exist interdependently, i.e. not inherently.

krodha wrote:
Per Nāgārjuna, "interdependence" a.k.a. "dependent existence" [parabhava] is merely a guise for true or inherent existence [svabhava].

Ultimately things are free from extremes, they are not "interdependent".

rachmiel said:
I'm inclined to avoid using the term "real" because it's so loaded and means different things to different people. "Things" or "existents" are also loaded, but less so, for me in any case.

krodha wrote:
"Real" is fairly straightforward. When you perceive an object and believe it to be actually existent i.e., "actually there", then you believe it to be real. Like a person who mistakes a rope in a dark room to be a snake, they mistakenly believe there is a snake present there, and that snake is real. When they eventually realize that the snake is a rope, they realize that the snake was unreal from the very beginning. That is what "real" and "unreal" mean in the context of Buddhism.

rachmiel said:
The trick, as I see it, is to not see conventional and ultimate truth as incompatible

krodha wrote:
Ultimate truth is the inability to find the objects that conventions infer the existence of. When the imputation "car" is realized to not actually refer to anything, because there is truly no car there, and never has been, that is "ultimate truth".

rachmiel said:
rather two ways of looking at the same thing, and finally perhaps ... as one way.

krodha wrote:
I'm not sure what this "same thing" would be, the two truths are certainly not two ways to look at a common referent.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
I don't think he was saying that conventional existents aren't real, rather that they exist conventionally, i.e. that they are impermanent and dependently arisen.

krodha wrote:
The very definition of a "conventional truth" in Buddhism is something that appears to be valid as long as it is not subjected to keen scrutiny, i.e., something that seems legitimate but cannot ultimately bear analysis ( seems and appears being the operative terms). Which means so-called conventional existents are never real.

To a deluded mind, a conventional truth appears to be a substantial referent, however from the standpoint of wisdom that same convention is known to be a mere insubstantial inference.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: China announces list of “verified living Tibetan Buddhas
Content:
krodha wrote:
In what can only be described as an odd, if not cynical, move by the self-avowed atheist government of China, a new list of “verified living Buddhas” or tulkus, reincarnated Buddhist masters, has been published in Chinese and Tibetan languages at http://hf.tibet.cn/.

dzogchungpa said:
Did Berkeley's favorite tulku, Pema Khandro Rinpoche, make the cut?

krodha wrote:
I get that you're being humorous, again that's all well and good and I'm all for it... but in all seriousness I'm not sure why you'd want to associate her name with China's garbage propaganda list, even for the sake of levity. Keep in mind that some people may not understand the politics behind this list, and do not realize that it is an example of the Chinese Government's oppression over the Tibetan people and their desperation to tarnish Tibetan Buddhism via dilution.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
Nagarjuna does not afaik assert that there are no existents, rather that we misunderstand HOW existents actually exist (interdependently). I'm calling "how existents actually exist" reality.

krodha wrote:
For Nāgārjuna, so-called "existents" do not even exist interdependently. As pointed out elsewhere, there is no "inter" in pratītyasamutpāda [dependent co-origination].

What originates dependently does not ultimately originate at all, per Mañjuśrī, Nāgārjuna, Candrakīrti, etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 2:06 AM
Title: China announces list of “verified living Tibetan Buddhas”
Content:
krodha wrote:
In power grab from the Dalai Lama, China announces list of “verified living Buddhas” for Tibetan Buddhism:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/americanbuddhist/2016/01/in-power-grab-from-the-dalai-lama-china-announces-list-of-verified-living-buddhas-for-tibetan-buddhism.html

In what can only be described as an odd, if not cynical, move by the self-avowed atheist government of China, a new list of “verified living Buddhas” or tulkus, reincarnated Buddhist masters, has been published in Chinese and Tibetan languages at http://hf.tibet.cn/. The purported role of the site is to inform citizens about the “real” high lamas and teachers, complete with ID numbers and monastery listings. The site, known as Rinpocheonline, is said to list 870 authentic Rinpoche’s (an honorific title meaning ‘precious one’ given to tulkus).

Vice president of China’s Buddhist Association, President of the Tibetan Branch of China’s Buddhist Association and 7th Drukhang Rinpoche Drukhang Thubten Khedrup, said that the query system going online is an important step for China’s Buddhist Association to promote religious education and further standardize matters related to reincarnation of Rinpoches.

He further added, in recent years some fraudsters have been posing as Rinpoches in Tibet and inland China, harming the interests of believers and ruining the reputation of Tibetan Buddhism. Now that there is a Rinpoche query system, net users can check to see if a Rinpoche is genuine or not, which will help protect the legitimate rights and interests of Tibetan Buddhism. It will also help promote community awareness of Tibetan Buddhism and Rinpoche groups.

- via Online query system launched, 870 Rinpoches can be verified: http://eng.tibet.cn/news/1453104700898.shtml

Russia Today posted an article quoting one Rinpoche from the list praising the initiative:

“As a living buddha, I feel genuinely happy about it,” said the 7th Drukhang living buddha Drukhang Thubten Khedrup, vice president of the Buddhist Association of China (BAC) at the launch ceremony.

However, critics rightly point out that it is yet another step by the central government toward attempting to control Tibetan Buddhism, which is soaring in popularity throughout China today, and to assert its right to choose the next Dalai Lama. The BBC reports:

However, the spiritual cataloguing scheme has already been criticised as a means of further controlling Tibetan affairs. “This living Buddha database and the whole policy toward reincarnation is clearly a pre-emptive move by the government to control what happens after this Dalai Lama,” Amnesty International’s Nicholas Bequelin told Time magazine in December 2015, when the list was first announced. It’s also seen as a means of confirming state choices for other religious appointments.

Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th and current Dalai Lama, is – according to Buddhist belief – a reincarnation of a past lama who decided to be reborn again to continue his work. He has been based in India since fleeing Tibet after the unsuccessful 1959 uprising. In 1995, both he and Beijing appointed different boys as Panchen Lama, the second most important role in Tibetan Buddhism. Now aged 25, China feted the lama on the 20th anniversary of his enthronement in December, presenting him as the one, official holder of the role.

China’s government last November reasserted its “right” to choose the next Dalai Lama, saying that reincarnation “has never been purely a religious matter or to do with the Dalai Lama’s individual rights; it is first and foremost an important political matter in Tibet and an important manifestation of the Chinese central government’s sovereignty over Tibet” and that “whoever has the name of Dalai Lama will control political power in Tibet… For this reason, since historical times, the central government has never given up, and will never give up, the right to decide the reincarnation affairs of the Dalai Lama.”

Meanwhile the Dalai Lama, who celebrated his 80th birthday in 2015, has continuously maintained that his reincarnation is his own personal right.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Could you explain what you mean here in some more detail? Are you saying that there is a noumena beyond phenomenal existence which produces phenomena, but that this noumena is itself unknowable?

rachmiel said:
Yes. I'm borrowing the terms (phenomena, noumena) from Kant, but it's obviously not HIS idea ... many others have said more or less the same thing. Plato, for example: All we can see/know are the shadows on the cave walls, not that which casts the shadows. What I'm saying, in essence, is that we do not create reality from scratch. We co-create it by detecting shadows of "what's really out there" and then interpreting these shadows as this or that.

Malcolm said:
This definitely does not correspond with Madhyamaka view. In Madhyamaka view, there is no reality.

krodha wrote:
Not that I personally buy into the idea proposed above, but for the sake of discussion: what Buddhist view would even correspond to this idea of a noumenon "beyond phenomenal" appearances? True aspectarian?


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 18th, 2016 at 8:35 AM
Title: Re: Removing Obscurations
Content:
krodha wrote:
The emotional obscuration is sustained by kleśas, which can only be exhausted by the force of prajñā.

Astus said:
All obscurations are eliminated by wisdom.

krodha wrote:
The point is that only Buddhas are free of the knowledge obscuration. Only Buddhas see dharmakāya.

Astus said:
there are different causes, and hence cessation of different causes to be rid of either obscuration.
"In general, whatever is an afflictive obscuration is necessarily a cognitive obscuration, but cognitive obscurations are not necessarily afflictive obscurations."
(Groundless Paths, p 575)

krodha wrote:
Again, the point is that you can eradicate kleśas and be free of the emotional obscuration, but the knowledge obscuration will remain until buddhahood.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 18th, 2016 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Removing Obscurations
Content:
Malcolm said:
See the Abhisamaya-ālamkara, etc.

Astus said:
Then it is the mistake of the grasper-grasped, the not seeing of the emptiness of appearances, just as already defined. Therefore once attachment is relinquished, no more obscurations remain of either kind.

krodha wrote:
The emotional obscuration is sustained by kleśas, which can only be exhausted by the force of prajñā. Bodhisattvas on the stages can be free of the emotional obscuration, but the knowledge obscuration is not uprooted til buddhahood.

The kleśas are not involved with the knowledge obscuration. So there are different causes, and hence cessation of different causes to be rid of either obscuration.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 8:38 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
smcj said:
That's why the practices don't work for us.

krodha wrote:
Since this seems to be a reoccurring theme in your posts as of late, I must ask, why would you assume that practices do not work for westerners?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 8:28 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
conebeckham said:
http://www.elizabethmattisnamgyel.com/tag/shentong/

Having a direct experience trumps all philosophical constructs.

smcj said:
Thats' the real Karma/Shangpa Kagyu position on all this.

conebeckham said:
Indeed.  And, I venture to guess, the Nyingma position as well.

krodha wrote:
And Buddhism in general for the most part.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 at 4:52 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
Here's another story from the old days.

Deshung R. (a very highly regarded Sakya master) was at our center. At one of his teaching there was a man that claimed to be part of a Nyingma family lineage from southern Russia and thus a Dharma teacher. (I have no opinion on his claim.) So even though he claimed to be a Vajrayana teacher he could not speak Tibetan. He had some students and asked the translator to ask Rinpoche something to the effect of, "Some  etherial being (I don't remember if it was a mamo or rakshasas or whatever) is messing with my student's minds. What should I do to drive him off?" The translator refused to translate it, saying, "They aren't real. They're just upaya. They are of the nature of emptiness. They are the same nature of your own mind." etc. He gave all the normal dialogue that you here western Buddhists tell each other, so that they can dismiss any idea of etherial figures as fantasy. But the Russian insisted, so the translator finally said, "Oh, alright." But much to his surprise when he asked Rinpoche about it, Rinpoche said, "Ah yes, he's been making trouble with my student's minds too. In order to get rid of him you need to do such-and-such puja on these certain days of the month" and gave very specific instructions on how to deal with this creature.

Just saying'...

krodha wrote:
This and the other example you gave above regarding supplication to the dharmapālas are examples of trust in the testimony of reliable persons and witnesses [śabda pramāṇa].

We have "faith" in the testimony of realized or experienced yogins who have had contact with these beings, or have visited places such as purelands and so on. Which can be referred to as "faith" in a very loose sense, but is arguably something more along the lines of trust and confidence in the information provided by realized or experienced individuals.

Just as when you are lost in a new city, you can have trust and confidence in the directions and information that you receive from a resident who knows the lay of the land. You have "faith" in their directions in the sense that you can trust the information provided. This is different than blind faith, and different from the species of faith that you appear to be advocating for.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 5th, 2016 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: Kuntu Zangpo
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
Samantabhadra never reified the display as other, his ignorance was merely neither knowing it nor not knowing it as self-display.

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=37861#p37861

krodha wrote:
Going by Malcolm's definition in the thread you have linked, Samantabhadra did indeed initially mistake his own display as other.

The definition of innate ignorance:

Malcolm said:
When the basis arises out of the basis, i.e. when the five lights of wisdom are stirred by vāyu after the shell of the youthful vase body is rent there is a neutral awareness [shes pa lung ma bstan] that does not recognize itself. That simple non-recognition is the innate ignorance.

krodha wrote:
Samantabhadra possessed innate ignorance:

Malcolm said:
Most people do not realize that Samantabhadra initially possessed the first ignorance. He never possessed the second.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 5th, 2016 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: Kuntu Zangpo
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Thanks for your reply.

Indeed last mentioned example / explanation is just that what i meant.
Have difficulties like always , to understand that which is never born and pure of the beginning and what did not got attached by dualisms etc. would have dispelled something.

I saw it untill now always as unborn and pure in the State abiding etc.
So i am very much intersted in how something perfect etc. has to dispell etc.
I guess that that dispelling has more to do with sentient beings like us who have to "develop" etc.
We have to dispell that is very clear to me.

KY

krodha wrote:
I only meant "dispelled" in the sense that Samantabhadra initially failed to recognize the appearances of the basis [ gzhi snang ] as his own self-display [ rang snang ] and mistook them to be external appearances [ gzhan snang ], so when he finally did recognize the appearances of the basis to be his own, he "dispelled" the delusion associated with mistaking them to be external appearances.

We as sentient beings are different because we have innate ignorance and imputing ignorance, along with the buildup of affliction and traces that we incur through our conditioning.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 4th, 2016 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Kuntu Zangpo
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
The section concludes with the assertion that Kuntu Zangpo is the cause or reason for the existence of primordial Buddhahood (de ni ku n tu bzang -po ye sangs-rgyas-pa'i gtan - tshigs-so), because from the very beginning He has understood and, therefore, He has never been mixed up in Samsara.

krodha wrote:
Samantabhadra never possessed the imputing ignorance [ kun brtags ] and therefore never entered samsara.

kalden yungdrung said:
In other Dzogchen texts did i read, Kuntu Zangpo did reached Enlightenment.

krodha wrote:
Samantabhadra did initially possess the innate ignorance, which is failure to recognize the appearances of the basis as one's own display. However he dispelled that delusion and successfully recognized his appearances as his own prior to engaging in the process of imputing self and other (imputing ignorance) which is the beginning of samsara.

Perhaps that is the difference you are asking about?

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Three_kinds_of_ignorance


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 4th, 2016 at 9:23 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
krodha wrote:
Since the real guru is your nature, the essential meaning of guru yoga of the white A is resting in a "real knowledge of one's primordial state [aka the basis]."

smcj said:
Does that make ChNN the unreal guru?

krodha wrote:
He is the outer guru [ phyi'i bla ma ].

Depending on the cycle there can be various types of guru yoga, outer, inner, secret, innermost secret, etc., but in general the outer guru is always the lama who gives ngo sprod or direct introduction.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 4th, 2016 at 8:02 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
Funny, I thought his advice was to practice the "guru-yoga of the AH" (which I think would make and interesting thread).

Guess not. Oh well.

krodha wrote:
Since the real guru is your nature, the essential meaning of guru yoga of the white A is resting in a "real knowledge of one's primordial state [aka the basis]."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 4th, 2016 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
I guess that is why ChNN stresses the development of devotion in the Guru Yoga, right?

krodha wrote:
For ChNN, "devotion" boils down to interest. If you have interest in the teachings then that is the type of "devotion" that is important and beneficial. Apart from that he has said that devotion, in the usual way we think of it, can actually be a hinderance.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 3rd, 2016 at 3:22 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
Along the same lines Dudjom R. has said that when speaking about emptiness from an intellectual understanding Madhyamaka is best, but when speaking about it from an experiential perspective Great Madhyamaka (Shentong) is best.

krodha wrote:
Gzhan stong is not "Great Madhyamaka", really wish you would listen to what people say and stop referring to it as such.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 31st, 2015 at 9:26 AM
Title: Re: Alex Jones
Content:
Myoho-Nameless said:
...conspiracy nonsense

krodha wrote:
An extremely blanketed and unbalanced attitude to adopt.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 2:27 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
sherabpa said:
Except that for Kongtrul, Rangjung Dorje was a zhentongpa, as well as others including Longchenpa, and I believe he was not unaware that their views were not entirely identical in all aspects.

smcj said:
Good thing this thread is in the Kagyu forum.

Do you have a source/citation for the Rangjung Dorje/Longchenpa position?

krodha wrote:
There's no source for Longchenpa being a gzhan stong pa, since he championed Prasanga Madhyamaka to be the definitive sūtra view in numerous places.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: The Nature of Obscuration in Dzogchen
Content:
florin said:
I dont really understand this quote.
I think it needs some work.

krodha wrote:
It is discussing the two sides of Dzogchen that you told me were nonsense.

(i) The side of the sentient being, the Dzogchenpa, a.k.a., the mode of appearance [snang tshul]. And (ii) the side of your nature, Dzogchen, which is the mode of reality [gnas tshul].

The quote makes perfect sense if both of those aspects are understood properly.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: The Nature of Obscuration in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm said:
Thus, florin and krodha are both correct. Florin is correct from the point of view of mode of reality [ gnas tshul ], kyle is correct from the point of view of the mode of appearances [ snang tshul ] for sentient beings.

krodha wrote:
Thanks. Although I suppose my gripe is that I'm willing to (and strive to) account for both sides of the equation (mode of reality and appearances) whereas Florin is solely clinging to the mode of reality and declaring that the mode of appearances is irrelevant and "not Dzogchen", which is essentially nihilism.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 29th, 2015 at 7:12 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Obscuration in Dzogchen
Content:
florin said:
Namkhai Norbu said numerous times that the highest form of purification is resting in instant presence.
But this is not to say that this should involve some kind of additional effort or activity on our part while resting.
So if this is the highest form of purification i dont see th need to reinterpret  what rinpoche has said and say" no...no we actually need to do more " and so on

krodha wrote:
Which is all well and good, but how long can you rest in that knowledge? That is the issue being discussed. As a beginner we have no knowledge of our state at all, and even once recognition occurs our view is unstable and fluctuates between equipoise [mnyam bzhag] and post-equipoise [rjes thob]. This is due to afflictive obscurations, as Jigme Lingpa describes here:

Vidyā [rig pa] as it is explained on the path is still accompanied by impure influences of subtle energy and mind, leading to the distorted states of ordinary mind [sems] and mental events. Because one's recognition of vidyā is thus contaminated and burdened, one can truly rest in vidyā only from time to time.

And this is the entire point I am making in regards to obscurations and afflictions. While resting in contemplation there is no issue, however contemplation does not become stable until karmic tendencies are diminished and ideally eradicated via the force of prajñā. Which means that equipoise i.e., contemplation is intermittent for a beginner, and even great masters may not rest in contemplation at all times. Only Buddhas rest in a direct and unobstructed knowledge of their nature at all times. And along with having omniscience, a Buddha is a Buddha because s/he has completely exhausted all affliction.

From Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:

Purification happens through training on the path. We have strayed from the basis and become sentient beings. To free the basis from what obscures it, we have to train. Right now, we are on the path and have not yet attained the result. When we are freed from obscuration, then the result - dharmakāya - appears.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 29th, 2015 at 6:51 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Obscuration in Dzogchen
Content:
florin said:
Spot on Magnus.
That is the core of it all.

krodha wrote:
Still, recognition of your nature is not buddhahood, which was the primary point of disagreement.

The first instance of recognition is simply awakening [bodhi], and from there one must refine one's knowledge [rig pa] through familiarization. Stability in the view must come about through dispelling obscurations such as habitual karmic tendencies. Granted these obscurations are divested and self-liberated effortlessly through resting in a direct knowledge of dharmatā, but just as in common Mahāyāna: the two obscurations (emotional and cognitive) must be uprooted for buddhahood to occur, and buddhahood does not occur prior to that.

As Khenpo Ngachung states here [per Malcolm]:

In any system of sutra or tantra, without gathering the accumulations and purifying obscurations, Buddhahood can never be attained. Though the system of gathering accumulations and purifying obscurations is different, in this respect [dzogchen] is the same.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 29th, 2015 at 7:04 AM
Title: Re: The Nature of Obscuration in Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
The primary disagreement I was referencing essentially concerned whether exhaustion of affliction is involved at all in Dzogchen.

It goes without saying that our nature is self-perfected and originally pure, meaning it is incapable of being afflicted, but affliction still arises due to non-recognition of that nature... and must be completely removed before so-called buddhahood occurs.

The individual I was talking with said the idea that afflictions must be removed to actualize buddhahood is a view of the causal tenet systems, but I respectfully disagree and do not see a contradiction between exhausting afflictions and Dzogchen being non-gradual.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 29th, 2015 at 7:04 AM
Title: Re: The Nature of Obscuration in Dzogchen
Content:
heart said:
Dzogchen is the path of self-liberation, that means that any kind of position, any kind of concept is self-liberated. That certainly include the afflictions.

/magnus

krodha wrote:
I agree. Yet self-liberation would merely be the way affliction and obscuration (for example) are naturally dispelled, this still implies that Dzogchen involves exhausting affliction.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 29th, 2015 at 6:24 AM
Title: The Nature of Obscuration in Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
The following statement from Śrī Siṃha (which was translated and shared by Malcolm some time ago) was recently the subject of some discussion and disagreement between a fellow DW forummer and I:

This is acceptable since a so called “primordial buddhahood” is not asserted. Full awakening is not possible without being free of the five afflictions... It is not possible for wisdom to increase without giving up afflictions. Wisdom will not arise without purifying afflictions.
--  Śrī Siṃha

While I see this quotation as representative and indicative of the Dzogchen path, the aforementioned individual I was interacting with is convinced that the above statement is not representative of Dzogchen and that Śrī Siṃha was most likely giving an exposition to a group of aspirants involved with lower and causal yānas.

In any case a discussion ensued regarding the nature of obscuration and affliction in Dzogpachenpo, and what it means to be involved with the path of Dzogchen in the sense of dispelling affliction and habitual karmic tendencies. I figured it would be more fruitful if moved to a forum such as this.

To offer some questions for discussion: how should we view obscuration and affliction in Dzogchen? Is Śrī Siṃha's insight indicative of the path of Dzogchen or is it completely unrelated?


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 21st, 2015 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Vasana said:
This is something I'm struggling with at the moment. Wouldn't a persona l basis by definition entail reifying a person, subjective-agency or self-existing referent? I'm sure it ties in to your current signature.

krodha wrote:
The basis is conventionally personal.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 19th, 2015 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Matt J said:
Actually, SMCJ, Lopon Tenzin Namdak promotes a shentong view in the context of Dzogchen. Perhaps for another thread...

krodha wrote:
Lopön Tenzin Namdak holds Prasagika to be correct sūtra view, according to Jean-Luc Achard. This topic came up on his forum and he said Lopön Rinpoche does not uphold a gzhan stong view.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
He is discussing the ground without the minds of any beings present whatsoever--either sentient or enlightened. That is transpersonal.

krodha wrote:
No he is discussing the nature of mind [sems nyid], which is not found separately from a mind [sems].

Like Malcolm has pointed out numerous times before, the term "ground" and variations of it like "ground of being" etc., are incorrect translations and incredibly misleading.

A basis without any mind present whatsoever is akin to positing a wetness without any liquid present whatsoever.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
...the basis is not sems.

krodha wrote:
Right, it is sems nyid, and hence in line with this statement from the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra cited earlier:

Outside of the saṃskṛtas [conditioned dharmas], there are no asaṃskṛta [unconditioned dharmas], and the true nature [bhūtalakṣaṇa] of the saṃskṛta is exactly asaṃskṛta. The saṃskṛtas being empty, etc. the asaṃskṛtas themselves are also empty, for the two things are not different.

This text goes on to say that the person who rejects the saṃskṛtas is attached to the asaṃskṛtas by attributing to them the characteristics of non-production [anutpāda], and by the very fact of this attachment those asaṃskṛtas are immediately transformed into saṃskṛtas. Which, as I have pointed out before; is equivalent to the act of turning dharmatā (the unconditioned nature of mind and phenomena) into a dharmin (a conditioned phenomenon) by considering it to be a separate, existent, unconditioned, free-standing nature.

It should instead be understood that the very non-arising of conditioned dharmas [saṃskṛtadharmas] is the unconditioned [saṃskṛta] dharmatā. It is an epistemic realization which dispels ignorance by severing the causes and conditions for invalid cognition... not an ontological essence that exists on its own (that is what Vedanta teaches).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
My understanding is that it is transpersonal.

krodha wrote:
This also contradicts the dam tshig of gcig pu, which is one of the four dam tshigs of the basis, Yongdzin Rinpoche explains here:

If you don't understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learnt in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your Damtsig is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen. Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (Nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one' pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen Damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen View. Hopefully you have understood clearly.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
krodha wrote:
Well, the basis is also epistemic, personal and conventionally diverse, as opposed to being ontological, transpersonal and singular like Brahman. So it would be vastly incorrect to say the differences are merely nominal.

smcj said:
My understanding is that it is transpersonal. Kongtrul and Dudjom both seem to say it.

krodha wrote:
It is "universal" in the sense that it is a generic characteristic that all minds have in common (like all distinct instances of water share the generic characteristic of wetness), but it is never transpersonal.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Matt J said:
Not to speak for Malcolm, but after having a long thread about this, he said that the basic difference is that the base is empty and not established, unlike Brahman.

smcj said:
Since we are talking about things that are not manifest phenomena, and both are said to be "beyond conceptuality", as far as I'm concerned it is basically a difference in semantics and linguistic convention.

krodha wrote:
Well, the basis is also epistemic, personal and conventionally diverse, as opposed to being ontological, transpersonal and singular like Brahman. So it would be vastly incorrect to say the differences are merely nominal.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
krodha wrote:
The point of stating that samsara and nirvāna are not present in the basis is simply to communicate that the principle that the basis represents is unaffected by recognition and non-recognition that occurs in relation to it.

But that idea isn't meant to suggest that there is some sort of freestanding and independent unconditioned element that is itself free of everything else. That is the view of Vedanta.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
krodha wrote:
The basis should be understood to be in accordance with the following insight from Nāgārjuna:
Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established,
the conditioned is not established;
since the conditioned is never established,
how can the unconditioned be established?
and,
Outside of the saṃskṛtas [conditioned dharmas], there are no asaṃskṛta [unconditioned dharmas], and the true nature [bhūtalakṣaṇa] of the saṃskṛta is exactly asaṃskṛta. The saṃskṛtas being empty, etc. the asaṃskṛtas themselves are also empty, for the two things are not different. Besides, some people, hearing about the defects of the saṃskṛtadharmas, become attached [abhiniveśante] to the asaṃskṛtadharmas and, as a result of this attachment, develop fetters.
The latter portion of the second quotation addresses your issue.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
"These are not the droids you are looking for". I get it.

krodha wrote:
Unfortunately you don't get it.

Darmatā is not a freestanding principle that is itself free of samsara and nirvāna. It is the non-origination of the mind that appears to take rebirth in the three realms, that process is called "samsara". Dharmatā is not a freestanding, independently established or substantial X that is free of phenomena, it is the lack of essence in phenomena.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
What I am saying is that the emperor has no clothes. If you are going to say that the basis is beyond causes and conditions, is not mind (seems), does not have either samsara or nirvana at all present in it, you've got to cop to it. You can't have it both ways.

krodha wrote:
Firstly, it is sems. There's no such thing as seems.

Secondly, you aren't understanding that the conflict you see is a byproduct of your own meager comprehension of the basis [gzhi]. Nothing I have said is in conflict with the principles you are attempting to evoke to make your argument.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
krodha wrote:
Dharmatā (the basis) is not some sort of freestanding principle that is itself free of the phenomena of samsara and nirvāna.

smcj said:
I had bookmarked the quotes on another computer, so I can't readily cite the specific posts, but recently Malcolm has made the point that the phenomena of samsara and nirvana are not present at all in the basis. He has frequently made the point that the basis is beyond causes and conditions. Interdependence is nothing but causes and conditions. He has also made the point that the basis is not "mind" (seems).

So please factor those things into your understanding of the conversation.

krodha wrote:
I have factored those things into the discussion, and nothing I have said is in conflict with those ideas.

You see conflict because you don't understand the basis properly. You're interpreting the gzhi through a tirthīka lens. The basis is no different than Vedanta's purusa according to your understanding.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Matt J said:
So there are external objects after all for Dzogchen?

krodha wrote:
Though it is because Dzogchen posits a container universe like Yogācāra where the collective traces of sentient beings manifest a common reality... as opposed to positing an independently substantial external world that is accessed via the senses via intromission like western scientific materialism believes.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
smcj said:
In the analogy there is nothing besides the images and the mirror, as Dudjom R. explains:

krodha wrote:
The issue is a bit more nuanced than that. Longchenpa discusses it here:

Although forms appear to the mind, the [objective] appearances are not mind... When the reflection of your face appears in a mirror, it appears as the face looks, because the clear surface of the mirror is capable of making the reflection appear and the face has the potential of appearing or of projecting the reflection. At that time, the reflection of the face is not the face, nor is there any other face than the face which imprinted it. Likewise, various kinds [of phenomena] are appearing in the deluded mind because of the interdependent origination of causes and conditions of delusion. The various objective appearances, such as mountains, are not mind. Also there is nothing in the mind which truly exists, but [merely] appearances [created by the] delusory habituations of the mind. so they are the forms of delusory appearances. They are wrong appearances, just as a person who has "hairy vision" will see hair before his eyes.

Some [scholars] inquire: "What are the appearances of earth and stone and so on if they are neither external [objects] nor internal [senses]?" I say, "You who think that all [phenomena] exist in the duality of [either] apprehender or apprehended are pigs!" Anyhow, it is said [in the scriptures] that all phenomena of samsara and nirvana are nonexistent as external, internal or in between, from the very time of their appearance, as [illustrated by] the eight examples of illusion.

From those appearances [of the objects in the mind], which are nonexistent, arise the delusions of the apprehenders and the apprehended. Here, the apprehended means the thought arisen at the first instant [of encountering the appearances], through the apprehended objects. So it is the mind itself arisen as the apprehended. The apprehender is the is the analyzing [thought] which arises after [the thought of the apprehended] and it arises from the mind (sems). In spyan ras gzigs brtul zhugs it is said:
"The apprehended arises from the mind which apprehends [the appearances] as the objects, the apprehender arises from the mind which analyzes it [the apprehended objects]."
The reflections appear in a mirror without the face passing into the mirror, nor do the reflections occur separately from the face. Likewise, it should be understood that from the very moment that all phenomena appear in the mind, they exist neither as the mind nor as anything other than the mind, as illustrated by the eight illusory examples.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
steve_bakr said:
The mind is without essence, yet it is clear and aware, reflecting the phenomenal universe. Is it correct, then, to say that the mind is neither eternal nor annihilated?

krodha wrote:
Yes mind is free from the extremes of existence and non-existence, and any combination of the two.

Eternalism would be the consequence of holding a view that something truly exists. Annihilation occurs when an existent ceases to exist, and holding to a view of that kind is "annihilationism". So, it is true that both of those positions become untenable if the nature of the mind is properly understood.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 16th, 2015 at 8:09 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
Who really overly cares about the concepts?

krodha wrote:
Anyone who is serious about their practice should "care about the concepts", wrong view corrupts one's entire path.

Granted traditions like Dzogpachenpo try to establish an experiential "right view" through direct introduction, but even then, a firm comprehension of the fundamentals of sūtra, tantra etc., is advisable, and understanding how the buddhadharma differs from tirthīka dharmas certainly will never be a hinderance.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 16th, 2015 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
For me there are two big differences:

The first is that Dzogchen is predicated on an understanding of Madhyamaka. If you can't understand how things aren't you will surely misunderstand how things are.

The second is lineage and Direct Introduction. There have consistently been generations of accomplished practitioners. It's not hit and miss.

Those two things are enough to say they are different.

krodha wrote:
The differences are far more monumental than that.

I've witnessed others point these differences out to you and others on this board. I recall the thread titled something akin to "the basis is one's unfabricated mind" was a veritable book which hashed out these differences in a very thorough and exhaustive manner.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 16th, 2015 at 7:55 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
They are quite different, and this becomes overtly apparent if both traditions are understood properly.
Lol, and that's where the conversation always ends, because they do look alike.

krodha wrote:
What do you mean "that's where the conversation always ends"? To say that is to neglect and ignore the pages and pages of discussion that have occurred on this forum which meticulously establish the glaring differences between these traditions.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 16th, 2015 at 7:25 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
krodha wrote:
I can't distinguish the two, which is why I made that remark.

smcj said:
Neither can I.

krodha wrote:
Right. This is what I'm saying; I can't distinguish between your understanding of Dzogchen and the view of Advaita Vedanta. So glad you're being honest that there is no difference in your understanding of both views.

smcj said:
I'm not saying that they are the same, but they sure sound like each other only using different terms

krodha wrote:
It surely appears that way if both systems are taken at face value.

smcj said:
Somethings gotta be different, like their fingerprints at least.

krodha wrote:
They are quite different, and this becomes overtly apparent if both traditions are understood properly.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 16th, 2015 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
Your understanding of the basis is no different than the purusa of Vedanta. This is a misunderstanding of Dzogpachenpo.
Yes, it is important to insist on that otherwise you fall into the problem of heresy.

krodha wrote:
Well, if you object to that charge then what are the differences between your understanding of Dzogchen and the view of Advaita Vedanta (which is explicitly rejected in the Dzogchen tantras)?

I can't distinguish the two, which is why I made that remark.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 16th, 2015 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
If you say that the basis is beyond causes and conditions, without any phenomena of either samsara or nirvana at all present, you are talking about something that is not part of phenomena. You can still say it is "non-dual" if "the basis arises as the universe" in ignorance and "the universe arises as the basis" in knowledge. The transcendent (oops, excuse me, "Primordial") is also immanent.

krodha wrote:
Your understanding of the basis is no different than the purusa of Vedanta. This is a misunderstanding of Dzogpachenpo.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 16th, 2015 at 5:35 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
Dharmas and dharmatā are non-dual. Which incidentally is one of the definitions of "non-dual" in the buddhadharma.
Exactly so, yet... And there are also no phenomena of either samsara or nirvana at all present in the basis.
...without contradiction. Therefore the analogy of the mirror and the images on it.

krodha wrote:
You're interpreting the basis like the purusa of Vedanta.

Dharmatā (the basis) is not some sort of freestanding principle that is itself free of the phenomena of samsara and nirvāna. Dharmatā is simply the fact that the mind is essenceless, and therefore isn't something real. Dzogchen does not contradict the so-called non-affirming negation of Madhyamaka.

Phenomena are like a mirage, illusory appearances. Cause and condition are simply the factors that prevent us from recognizing that phenomena are illusory and essenceless. Cause is ignorance [avidyā], condition is habitual karmic tendencies of grasping that are predicated upon said ignorance.

The fact that you don't realize that a mirage is a mirage, and mistake the appearance to be existent foliage and water does not mean that flora and water originate. That is what cause and condition is. The factors that sustain the false conviction that trees, plants and water are present when there is truly only a mirage.

So we say that the flora and water have a "mirage-nature" a dharmatā, in order to communicate that they are not real. But that does not mean the mirage exists. The mirage is med par gsal snang, a non-existent clear appearance.

The basis is simply a way to communicate that the flora and water are actually a mirage, a.k.a. the mind and its dynamism are essenceless. Something that has no essence cannot have a substantial essence, because it's never been real to begin with.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 16th, 2015 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
"Phenomena"="causes and conditions"
"Primordial"="beyond causes and conditions."
Therefore by definition
Phenomena≠Primordial

krodha wrote:
This is a misunderstanding of cause and condition. Since what originates in accordance with cause and condition does not ultimately arise at all, phenomena are primordial by nature. The only thing that obscures our knowledge of that primordial nature is ignorance [avidyā].

Dharmas and dharmatā are non-dual. Which incidentally is one of the definitions of "non-dual" in the buddhadharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 16th, 2015 at 5:04 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Malcolm said:
There is no actual state or condition that is free from duality. If one should think that there is, one will have not understood one single thing about Buddha Dharma.

Because people think there is a real state free from dualistic extremes, they fall into the pit of eternalism and grasping, never even recognizing emptiness correctly, let alone realizing it, and hampering their understanding of dependent origination.

Thinking there is such a thing as a real state of non-duality is precisely the Advaita Vedanta, Trika and so on.

The term non-dual (gnyis med, or advaya) is used frequently in Buddhist texts. The term non-duality (gnyis med nyid, advaita) is virtually never used, showing up only one time in the entire Kengyur, in a single passage in the Kalacakra tantra (hooray for a text searchable Tibetan canon!); and nineteen times in the Tengyur, the translations of Indian commentaries.

smcj said:
v.s.
Malcolm said:
And there are also no phenomena of either samsara or nirvana at all present in the basis.

smcj said:
I couldn't find the original, this is from a secondary:
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=20258&hilit=nail&start=340

krodha wrote:
There's no contradiction.

That being said, if you think the basis [gzhi] is some sort of thing in itself that is free of duality then you are misunderstanding the basis.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 16th, 2015 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
krodha wrote:
That would indeed be the case. "Non-dual" in Buddhism and Vedanta mean different things.

smcj said:
Yes, that is very important to remember since to admit otherwise would be heresy. That simply cannot be allowed!

krodha wrote:
I know you're being facetious here and the humor is all well and good, but nevertheless it is important to understand these differences.

Malcolm said:
There is no actual state or condition that is free from duality. If one should think that there is, one will have not understood one single thing about Buddha Dharma.

Because people think there is a real state free from dualistic extremes, they fall into the pit of eternalism and grasping, never even recognizing emptiness correctly, let alone realizing it, and hampering their understanding of dependent origination.

Thinking there is such a thing as a real state of non-duality is precisely the Advaita Vedanta, Trika and so on.

The term non-dual (gnyis med, or advaya) is used frequently in Buddhist texts. The term non-duality (gnyis med nyid, advaita) is virtually never used, showing up only one time in the entire Kengyur, in a single passage in the Kalacakra tantra (hooray for a text searchable Tibetan canon!); and nineteen times in the Tengyur, the translations of Indian commentaries.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 16th, 2015 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
So therefore the "innate knowing" of each (without a subject/object dichotomy) must then know different non-dualities?

krodha wrote:
That would indeed be the case. "Non-dual" in Buddhism and Vedanta mean different things.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 16th, 2015 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Has 'asunthatneversets' set?

krodha wrote:
We can pretend it is a permanent solar eclipse.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 15th, 2015 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
steve_bakr said:
In Advaita Vedanta, the Self is Brahman. My question would be: What are the similarities between Brahman and Rigpa?

krodha wrote:
The only similarity is that "knowing" [jñā] (or "knowingness" for lack of a better term) is an innate characteristic of each (rig pa/vidyā literally means "knowledge"). Beyond that they are nothing alike.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 11th, 2015 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Tsongkhapa Madhyamaka
Content:
Paul said:
Lopon Tenzin Namdak gives a great explanation in Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings on why chittamatra, madhyamaka, mahamudra, and the various levels of tantra are negated by Dzogchen. It's very interesting indeed.

krodha wrote:
Yet on the level of sūtra, Lopon Tenzin Namdak also goes with Prasangika Madhyamaka, according to Jean-Luc Achard.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 9:58 AM
Title: Re: Huang Po's One Mind & Dzogchen
Content:
steve_bakr said:
I asked the following question of an expert in Dzogchen and the Tibetan language.

krodha wrote:
Who is this alleged "expert in Dzogchen"?


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Astus said:
It is only as incoherent as dependent origination, since dependent nature is just that: causality.

krodha wrote:
The paratantra [dependent nature] is the ālayavijñāna.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 7th, 2015 at 3:49 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
So "true self", "genuine self" etc., are just rhetorical devices.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 7th, 2015 at 11:57 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
Malcolm discussed this on page 5 of this very thread:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=97&t=19453&p=282844#p282844

This specifically:

Malcolm said:
As for tathāgatagarbha always existing in the continuums of sentient beings; if you think somehow tathāgatagarba is something other than or different than a sentient beings mind, there there is a fallacy of the tathāgatagarbha being something like an atman. But there is no atman in the tathāgatagarbha theory, not really. the supreme self, (paramātma) is explained very clearly in the Uttaratantra:
The supreme self is the pacification of the proliferations of self and and nonself.
But what does this mean? Asanga adds:
The perfection of self (ātmapāramitā) is known through two reasons: due to being free from proliferation of a self because of being free from the extreme of the non-buddhists and due to being free from the proliferation of nonself because of giving up the extreme of the śrāvakas.
He explains further:
From cultivating prajñāpāramita in order to turn away from seeing the five addictive aggregates as self, the non-existent self in which the others, the nonbuddhists, delight, one attains the result, the perfection of self. In this way all the others, the nonbuddhists, accept natureless things such as matter and so on as a self due to their being deceived by a characteristic of a self according to how those things are being apprehended, but that self never existed. 

The Tathāgata, on the other hand, has attained the supreme perfection of the selflessness of all phenomena through the wisdom that is in accord with just how things truly are, and though there is no self according to how he sees things, he asserts a self all the time because he is never deceived by the characteristic of a self that does not exist. Making the selfless into a self is like saying "abiding through the mode of nonabiding.
There are some people who, ignoring the Nirvana Sutra's admonition to rely on the meaning rather than on the words, fall headlong into eternalism, unable to parse the Buddha's profound meaning through addiction to naive literalism.

Tathagatagarbha is just a potential to become a buddha. When we say it is has infinite qualities, this is nothing more nor less than when the Vajrapañjara praises the so called "jewel-like mind":
The jewel-like mind is tainted with
evil conceptual imputations;
but when the mind is purified it becomes pure. 
Just as space cannot be destroyed,
just as is space, so too is the mind. 
By activating the jewel-like mind
and meditating on the mind itself, there is the stage of buddhahood, 
and in this life there will be sublime buddhahood.
There is no buddha nor a person
outside of the jewel-like mind,
the abode of consciousness is ultimate, 
outside of which there isn't the slightest thing. 
All buddhahood is through the mind...
Matter, sensation, perception
formations and consciousness
these all arise from the mind,
these [five] munis are not anything else.
Like a great wishfulfilling gem, 
granting the results of desires and goals, 
the pure original nature of the true state of the mind
bestows the result, Buddha's awakening
There is no other basis apart from this natural purity of the mind that is inseparable clarity and emptiness. We can call it whatever we want, but still this fact remains. The Lankāvatara rightly observes that tathāgatagarbha is just a name for emptiness and the ālayavijñāna for those afraid of emptiness. Jayānanda writes that ālayavijñāna is the mind that comprehends the basis, i.e. emptiness. How else can the mind be purified of evil conceptual imputations other than by realizing emptiness? Emptiness free from all extremes is the pure original nature of the true state of the mind, so why bother confusing oneself with all kinds of rhetoric? The mind itself has two aspects, emptiness and clarity, ka dag and lhun grub, and these are inseparable. This inseparable clarity and emptiness is call the ālaya in gsar ma and the basis in Nyingma. This also known as tathagatagarbha when it encased in afflictions, the dharmadhātu from its ultimate side, the ālayavijñāna from its relative side and so on. It really is not that complicated.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 15th, 2015 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Book Release Party and Reading by Yudron—Oakland, CA
Content:
krodha wrote:
Good luck today Yudron! I would be there but I'm out of town.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 9:30 AM
Title: Re: Pointing Out through Appearances
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I also post on Philosophy Forum, and if you posted that line of argument, it would either be ignored or ridiculed, whereas I'm starting to understand how it could be true.

krodha wrote:
/r/philosophy on Reddit is like that too, very caged in realist and materialist thinking.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Flight of the Garuda
Content:
krodha wrote:
Tony Duff has one too.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 11th, 2015 at 2:38 PM
Title: Re: xiaozhengm
Content:
amanitamusc said:
Great example of ignorance.

krodha wrote:
Could be some sort of spam bot. Just be sure not to click the links.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 3:53 PM
Title: Re: Non-action/effort & Benefiting others -a false dichotomy
Content:
krodha wrote:
In the context of Dzogchen, the aspect of your nature that is referred to as "compassion" [thugs rje] expresses itself through altruistic deeds, which are actions that naturally aim to benefit sentient beings. This is why Buddhas and bodhisattvas are naturally inclined to benefit beings and lead them to awakening.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 3:46 PM
Title: Re: How do you overcome anger and hate?
Content:
krodha wrote:
The only true "cure" for anger and hate is transcendent prajñā that eradicates kleśas, which is actualized through insight into the nature of your mind and phenomena. When that occurs you simply will have uprooted negative emotions altogether, and they will no longer arise.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 3:33 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:


Malcolm said:
Not exactly.

alpha said:
Jim Valbi says otherwise.

krodha wrote:
The aggregates, perceptions, emotions are the potentiality of your nature misconstrued as internal and external phenomena. They are at root, your own display, but that is meaningless unless one directly recognizes that to be the case.

Otherwise you're no better off than a monotheist who is satisfied believing X to be the case. The point (in Dzogchen etc.) is to experientially recognize that X is the case.

The salient issue is how you experience these things. You don't experience the aggregates to be wisdoms if you haven't recognized the nature of your mind.

In the same way that we can't exactly say that the snake is an expression of the rope. The snake is a misconception. A byproduct of ignorance, which is ultimately unreal and never actually originated at any point in time. Same goes for the aggregates.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 7:21 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The nine position scheme consists of varying interpretations (of the basis) that key adepts have chosen to champion. They are:
1. gza' gtad dang bral ba [championed by Oḍḍiyāna Mahārāja and Vimalamitra]

2. lhun grub [Garab Dorje]

3. bdag nyid chen po [Vairocana]

4. rang byung ye shes [Ānandā (nun)]

5. bya btsal dang dral ba [Buddhagupta]

6. bde ba chen po [Śrī Siṃha]

7. gnyis su med pa [Kukurāja and Mañjuśrīmitra]

8. thig le chen po [Rājahastin]

9. chos thams cad gzhi ji bzhin pa [Garab Dorje, Dhahenatalo (king) and gNubs-chen Sangs-rgyas ye-shes]

Malcolm said:
You should clarify this is from sems sde, not man ngag sde.

krodha wrote:
Thanks, I actually wasn't aware of this, although makes sense. Are Nubchen's expositions generally classified as sems sde?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
alpha said:
In the schema i came across in my readings the 7 positions listed do not include bdag nyid chen po
The list is as follows:
Kadag
lhun grub
ma ges pa
nges pa'i don
cir yang sgyur du btub pa
cir yang khas blang du btub pa
sna tshogs su char'ba

krodha wrote:
The nine position scheme consists of varying interpretations (of the basis) that key adepts have chosen to champion. They are:
1. gza' gtad dang bral ba [championed by Oḍḍiyāna Mahārāja and Vimalamitra]

2. lhun grub [Garab Dorje]

3. bdag nyid chen po [Vairocana]

4. rang byung ye shes [Ānandā (nun)]

5. bya btsal dang dral ba [Buddhagupta]

6. bde ba chen po [Śrī Siṃha]

7. gnyis su med pa [Kukurāja and Mañjuśrīmitra]

8. thig le chen po [Rājahastin]

9. chos thams cad gzhi ji bzhin pa [Garab Dorje, Dhahenatalo (king) and gNubs-chen Sangs-rgyas ye-shes]


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015 at 10:13 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
monktastic said:
No doubt someone will enlighten us on what the above really means, but it's sort of irrelevant to my point, which is: it's really easy to deeply misunderstand words.

krodha wrote:
I wrote this on VC awhile ago regarding bdag nyid chen po which is the term being translated as "great self":

Depending upon which system of Dzogpachenpo you are using there can be between seven and nine positions one can take in relation to the basis [gzhi]. Vairocana's view of choice was bdag nyid chen po, however that is only one facet of the basis, and therefore grasping at that definition as an all encompassing view which speaks for the basis would be akin to the blind man grasping the elephants tail and proclaiming that the elephant is actually a rope. It is an incomplete view. Further, the only definitive view of the basis is held to be ka dag i.e. original purity, which is emptiness free from extremes. Ka dag as such therefore completely forbids any type of 'self'.

Dzogchen does not hold bdag nyid chen po to be a 'self' in the sense one may mistakenly think it is. This is known by anyone who understands the view of Atiyoga. You will not find any sect or cycle of Dzogchen which states there is a truly established 'self'.

As stated by Dylan Esler on this issue, 'integral being' [bdag nyid chen po] (what is being referred to as a 'great self') is nothing more than the inseparable emptiness and clarity [stong gsal dbyer med] which is experienced upon recognizing the nature of mind [sems nyid] and does not refer to an eternal self of any kind. He states "The fact that it is explicitly described as being both empty and luminous excludes reification into a monolithic self."

The point of bdag nyid chen po is to illustrate that the nature of one's mind is not to be found elsewhere, that it is one's immediate condition, however it is the the wisdom which ensues from recognizing the non-arising of one's mind [skt. citta, tib. sems]. This term is therefore pointing to that nature, and only that nature which is completely empty and free from extremes.

Esler continues:
"...the tantric and rDzogs-chen notion of integral being [skt. mahātman] should not be misconstrued to contradict the orthodox Buddhist insistence on selflessness [skt. anātman], simply because of the use of related words with different shades of meaning. As mentioned above, the terminology used is sufficiently precise to ward off misunderstanding, and that is to say nothing of the contextual meaning, which leaves no trace of doubt."
and:
"It is precisely when egocentric apprehension, the mistaken moment-by-moment reification of a self [skt. ātman], falls aside that one can speak of integral being [skt. mahātman], without this notion contradicting more normative Buddhist ideas of selflessness [skt. anātman]."
So, yes, agreed that it is important to understand these principles in context, otherwise you will have people who will attempt to skew and distort Dzogchen as some sort of eternalist dogma that is promulgating an unconditioned "self" (which is something I have unfortunately encountered).


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015 at 9:50 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
williamlam said:
Back to experiential difference. So realising the non-duality of the Witness (Advaita) FEELS different from realising the Emptiness of the Witness (Dzogchen)?

krodha wrote:
The latter involves direct insight the unreality and impossibility of the former, so yes.

williamlam said:
Isn't Emptiness (the lack of independent existence of all things) an intellectual concept, resulting from ones insight into the Law of Dependant Origination?

krodha wrote:
No the realization of emptiness is non-conceptual, like tasting sugar. There are paths such as Madhyamaka that employ analytical meditations, but those meditations are meant to actualize an experiential and non-conceptual realization.

williamlam said:
How does the experiential understanding or insight of Emptiness feels like?

krodha wrote:
"Awakening" is the most apt and succinct description of how it feels. Waking up to see the way things really are.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
krodha wrote:
In that way you can see that systems such as Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta go in opposite directions in terms of praxis. The former sets out to recognize the emptiness of clarity, while the latter reifies and fortifies clarity.

In Vedanta you take the position as the passive witness. You are the seer, you are the hearer, and that is your true identity. In Dzogchen the witness is meant to be immediately uprooted, there is no seer or hearer, the idea of a core witness is an illusion that manifests due to ignorance and habitual patterns of grasping.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
williamlam said:
I think we are getting into very interesting territory here.

How does Dzogchen, and Buddhism, go "beyond" the non-duality of Awareness/Pure Witness/True Self in Advaita?

krodha wrote:
Because it treats the clarity of mind as being empty/non-arisen, and therefore avoids reifying clarity into some sort of abiding, background, substratum that serves as a foundation for a witness or true self, etc.

You should already be familiar with such views, e.g. in seeing there is just the seen, no "seer". Same goes for the other sense doors, etc... that is the emptiness of clarity.

Genuine insight into this completely decimates the possibility of a witness or a true self etc. Those who champion such views are merely grasping at clarity (reifying it as something substantial and independent), which is taught to be a deviation in Dzogpachenpo.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, November 2nd, 2015 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
williamlam said:
Is the difference in the non-duality of Avaita Vedanta and the non-duality of Dzogchen an intellectual difference, or an experiential one?

Is it "same taste", but interpreted differently?

* I'm asking as I have known many that have "realized non-duality" through Avaita, and will like to know if such realization has its similarities and place in the Buddhist system of awakening.

krodha wrote:
Those I know who have dabbled in both systems with some success say that the difference is experiential.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, November 1st, 2015 at 8:55 AM
Title: Re: Nature of mind vs. soul theory.
Content:
krodha wrote:
Dharmatā cannot be a "soul". Especially given that it represents the fact that there is no svabhāva to be found in the mind.

The misconception of a soul or an enduring self/entity comes about because we fail to recognize the nature of mind.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
tepp01 said:
I never implied that I was told the two systems were compatible. What I was told is that this particular teaching (considered to be basically the 'heart teaching' of Ramana Maharshi) itself is similar or compatible.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps provisionally, as a mere exercise, but they aren't not intended to lead to the same species of insight.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
krodha wrote:
The Dzogchen tantras explicitly reject the Advaita Vedanta view, so it is quite questionable for a teacher to suggest the two systems are compatible.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
tepp01 said:
All I was trying to add here (since someone had mentioned Ramana Maharshi) is that the "Who Am I" (vichaara) practice itself is compatible with both Dzogchen and Advaita.

krodha wrote:
It really isn't since the goal of Advaita self-inquiry is to discover the mere clarity of mind (and reify it as some sort of irreducible, universal identity).


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
It's also been pointed out before that so-called rang stong and gzhan stong are views taken up in post-equipoise. Which means they are experienced the same way in equipoise.

smcj said:
Agreed. Both views have produced enlightened beings so they are the same in that respect. That being the case, what's the big deal?

krodha wrote:
No ones arguing against gzhan stong in this thread as far as I can tell. Conflating Buddhist views with Hindu and Trika systems is the problem.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
krodha wrote:
It's also been pointed out before that so-called rang stong and gzhan stong are views taken up in post-equipoise. Which means they are experienced the same way in equipoise.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Also, since it has been pointed out numerous times in this forum, it is worth reiterating: "Great Madhyamaka" does not mean gzhan stong.

smcj said:
Really? That again? Time to let go and move on.

krodha wrote:
Agreed.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Also, since it has been pointed out numerous times in this forum, it is worth reiterating: "Great Madhyamaka" does not mean gzhan stong.

smcj said:
The way Dudjom R. uses it, it does, as has been pointed out repeatedly numerous times by me. His usage is not exclusive, however since he is an authority he has license to define it how he pleases. Terms are regularly re-defined by various authors. For instance Khenpo Tsultrim defines Yogacara as synonymous with Shentong. He does not use Yogacara to mean "Mind Only". That's not how most other writers define Yogacara, but since he explains it he is allowed to use it how he sees fit.

krodha wrote:
Right, the point being that "great Madhyamaka" has been used various ways by numerous individuals. There's no trademark definition, and this means it does not indicate gzhan stong unless someone chooses to implement it in that context.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
As a footnote I'd like to point out that DKR is Dudjom R.'s grandson and presumably brought up in the tradition of his grandfather. Therefore I think it safe to assume he accepts the Great Madhyamaka/Shentong view of emptiness which is not universally accepted in Nyingma. Thus he may express opinions not all Nyingmapas would agree with.

krodha wrote:
Also, since it has been pointed out numerous times in this forum, it is worth reiterating: "Great Madhyamaka" does not mean gzhan stong.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 2:11 PM
Title: Re: Eternalism in Buddhadharma
Content:
nilakantha said:
Buddha is the eternally pure real upon which we project our karmically produced nightmare.

krodha wrote:
A "Buddha" is one who has fully uprooted ignorance, exhausted karmic traces and has actualized omniscience. Your nature is not "Buddha", Buddha is one who has a total and complete, unobstructed knowledge of his/her nature.

nilakantha said:
Even with good karma, if there were no Eternal Self, all we could produce would be new dreams with a limited shelf life; we could never wake up because there would no reality to which we could awaken.

krodha wrote:
This is absolutely false and indicates a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the buddhadharma.

nilakantha said:
To be a Buddha means to have produced a Sambhogakaya that is a fit locus for the hierophanic manifestation of the Eternal Buddha who is identical to our True Self.

krodha wrote:
There is no such thing as a "true self" in Buddhism. You are conflating the buddhadharma with sanatanadharma.

For as much alleged studying as you've done your view is not very refined or well-rounded, but I suppose that is the issue with understanding the buddhadharma: you truly cannot unless you've experientially tasted the truth it is founded upon.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 11:12 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
"Exists" is used here as a lexical indicator to gesture at the ground of being that is, of couse, not a being.

krodha wrote:
"Being" or "existence" is a misconception. The cause for the arising of that misconception is ignorance [avidyā], and since upon analysis, arising, abiding and cessation cannot be found, "being" cannot be found, much less a "ground" of said being. With the cessation of ignorance the misconception of "being" also ceases, and phenomena are realized to be essenceless and non-arisen. This is why Dōgen, for example, states that the Tathāgatas never go beyond clarifying cause and effect.

There generally is no Buddhist view that promulgates a "ground of being."


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 10:41 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
Buddha alone exists independantly of causes and conditions. Some have called me an eternalist for this position. If you don't, fair enough.

krodha wrote:
Well, the Tathāgata technically does not "exist" but rather is free from the four extremes. If the Tathāgata existed s/he would be conditioned, see chapter 22 [tathāgataparīkṣā] of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 9:57 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
krodha wrote:
Perhaps you aren't clear on what "eternalism" entails? Eternalism is a term used to indicate when an individual has taken a position which involves adhering to a view that supports a svabhāva, or an established essence that exists in a substantial way independently of causes and conditions (or independently in general). Which in short means you believe there are things that actually exist, be it the mind, wisdom or a self, etc.

Nothing you've shared thus far has argued for an eternalist position as I can tell. Yet like I said, that doesn't mean you are unable to interpret them with an eternalist bias, as some surely do.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 9:45 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
krodha wrote:
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with what we're discussing (nor how any of that advocates for, or supports an eternalist position).

Also, it's nearly impossible to differentiate your own writing with quotations and textual support for your argument. You should try to implement quotation boxes or italics in order to clearly differentiate cited passages from your own personal contribution to the discussion.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 8:52 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
krodha wrote:
That being said the general point of texts like that is to offer an upāya for people who are fearful of principles such as emptiness and so on. So they perform their function either way. Such is the wisdom of the Buddhas.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 8:48 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
krodha wrote:
Much like people who read texts such as the Mahāyāna-mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra and think it is talking about an actual "self". They are more often than not, very literal-minded individuals who are either (i) intentionally and willfully ignorant of context, nuance, literary devices etc., due to harboring various biases, or (ii) are simply legitimately ignorant and don't comprehend what they are reading.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 8:44 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
I interptet the text through the clear meaning of the words.

krodha wrote:
Well, I have no idea how you interpret it, but chances are if your interpretation errs towards eternalism then it is extremely literal, lacking nuance and context.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 8:29 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
Perhps you're familiar with a differant text.

krodha wrote:
There are individuals who interpret the Uttaratantra through a lens of eternalism, but that does not mean that is the actual intention of the text.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 8:20 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
The final teaching in Mahayana is in the Uttara Tantra Shastra, revealed by Maitreya to Asanga. In in we're taught (in Sanskrit):

krodha wrote:
Which has nothing to do with eternalism.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 7:21 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
Eternalism is the essence of the Buddhadharma.

krodha wrote:
I really hope you're joking.

nilakantha said:
I don't find Chinese Buddhism any more Eternalistic than I find Sanskrit Mahayana.

krodha wrote:
Then you aren't reading closely enough.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 6:58 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
Just mentioned it to suggest that canonicity in Buddhism is very differant than canonicity in Christianity. Just because a text was composed in China doesn't mean it's not Buddhavacana.

krodha wrote:
Although the majority of those sutras that are listed on the "Buddhist apocrypha" page do indeed read and contain principles that are quite different than those found in Indian texts, which is arguably why East Asian Buddhism tends to be very eternalistic.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 6:24 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The The Brahmajāla Sūtra is classified as Buddhist apocrypha:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_apocrypha

nilakantha said:
So we should also reject the Heart Sutra: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Sutra?

krodha wrote:
The idea that it is apocrypha was put forth by Jan Nattier:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Sutra#Nattier_hypothesis

From the wiki page:

The [Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya] text is very short, and it is generally believed to be Buddhist apocrypha written in China using excerpts of a translation of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra...


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
DGA said:
is this debate necessary to effective Dharma practice?

is it useful to the same?

krodha wrote:
It's only necessary and effective in that "non-dual" [gnyis med] should be understood properly in both systems, and the respective definition of "non-dual" in each tradition should not be conflated.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
krodha wrote:
The The Brahmajāla Sūtra is classified as Buddhist apocrypha:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_apocrypha


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Purusa gives rise to prakrti.

Malcolm said:
Not exactly, not in Saṃkhya proper, anyway.

krodha wrote:
Thanks, will research further then.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Matt J said:
And Advaita doesn't say that pursua is an singular

krodha wrote:
It does, hence ekam advtītyam, the definition of "Advaita".

Matt J said:
ontological substance

krodha wrote:
Brahman is an unconditioned existent, defined as sat, cit, ananda or "existence, consciousness, bliss". This means it is ontological in nature.

Matt J said:
or source.

krodha wrote:
Purusa gives rise to prakrti.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
krodha wrote:
The model of Advaita Vedanta has puruṣa and prakṛti. Puruṣa is a singular ontological source that gives rise to prakṛti, however prakṛti (and the transformation of the three gunas) is held to be unreal, as it is illusion [māyā], only puruṣa is real. Puruṣa is Brahman, and is an unconditioned knower [jñā].

So Advaita involves working to remove the delusion of prakṛti i.e., māyā, so that only puruṣa remains. Puruṣa is then held to be truly established, as one without a second [ekam advtītyam].

The only thing that is unreal in Advaita is the expressions prakṛti, which implies that there is a real, and truly established nature which is alone true (and existent). This nature is then held to be one's true identity or a "true self", which means Advaita is an ātmavāda.

There is simply nothing like this in Dzogchen or Buddhism in general.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
krodha wrote:
I sincerely doubt these teachers knew what they were agreeing to. Ramana Maharshi's view is Advaita Vedanta, which does not resemble Dzogchen at all. They are completely different systems.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, October 27th, 2015 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
tepp01 said:
Actually, Ramana Maharshi did not emphasize "stripping content from experience," and his teachings were not, strictly speaking, necessarily the same as those of the traditional Advaita Vedanta of Adi Shankaracharya (as Ramana himself asserted).

Ramana's essential teachings were simply this:  "As each thought arises one must be watchful and ask to whom is this thought occurring. The answer will be 'to me'. If you enquire 'Who am I?' the mind will return to its source (or where it issued from). The thought which arose will also submerge. As you practice like this more and more, the power of the mind to remain as its source is increased."

This particular teaching is compatible with any tradition, of any religion.

krodha wrote:
It isn't compatible with the buddhadharma, and especially not Dzogpachenpo due to the fact that it is a view which involves reifying the clarity of mind as ultimate.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 26th, 2015 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
krodha wrote:
The primary difference is in the nature and implications of "non-dual".

The puruṣa of Vedanta is "non-dual", however it is an ontological, transpersonal, homogenous, unconditioned existent. Which means that Advaita is a substantial and reductive non-duality.

Whereas one's nature in Dzogchen is epistemic, personal, heterogeneous and free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. This means that one's nature in Dzogchen is insubstantial and a non-reductive non-duality.

An ontological non-duality is where everything is reduced to a single substance that exists alone by itself. For example if subject and object were merged and we then held a view that the union of the two as a single X is truly substantial and valid.

On the other hand, an epistemological non-duality is simply a recognition that the nature of phenomena is free from the dual extremes of existence and non-existence, hence "non-dual". This is a non-reductive non-duality because it does not leave anything in its wake, there is no X left over once the nature of phenomena is recognized.

In epistemic non-duality the nature of a conditioned phenomenon [dharma] and its non-arisen nature [dharmatā] are ultimately neither the same nor different, hence they are "non-dual", because the misconception of a conditioned entity is a byproduct of ignorance, and therefore said entity has never truly come into existence in the first place. This means that the allegedly conditioned entity has truly been unconditioned from the very beginning. And to realize this fact only requires a cessation of cause for the arising of the misconception of a conditioned entity, i.e., a cessation of ignorance. If dharmins and dharmatā were not non-dual then it would be impossible to recognize the unborn nature of phenomena because that nature would be rendered another conditioned entity.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 22nd, 2015 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Refraining from Halloween
Content:
krodha wrote:
I LOL'ed.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 6:50 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
That is problematic due to distance. I will try my best.

krodha wrote:
I mean, you made the effort to travel and receive teachings from Jax. So perhaps next time you can make the effort to go see a truly qualified teacher.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 9:11 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
I am saying that one can indeed see into the nature of one's own mind through this text, although it is not my only Direct Introduction.

krodha wrote:
You can't receive direct introduction from a text.

steve_bakr said:
The subject of having a teacher in the climate of such an enormously large ratio of students per teacher deserves its own thread. It is very problematic.

krodha wrote:
Seems to work just fine for many people.

steve_bakr said:
The quality of teaching today is seriously compromised by the sheer numbers of students involved.

krodha wrote:
Why would the quality of the teaching be compromised by the number of students? That does not make sense.

steve_bakr said:
The entire landscape and the logistics of teaching are completely different today.

krodha wrote:
Not sure why that would compromise the quality of a master's teaching.

steve_bakr said:
On the other hand, there are more resources available than ever.

krodha wrote:
What does "resources" mean here? Teachers? Texts?

steve_bakr said:
To be certain, the old way of doing things is all but obsolete. It is a subject of critical importance, which I am very mindful of.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps what you mean is there are some contemporary western "teachers" who think they know better and are leading people like you down wrong paths in the name of some sort of delusional renaissance.

The so-called "old way" of doing things has a proven track record, producing realized individuals and masters for centuries with unbroken lineages, can't say the same for your "new-age-chen."


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Can a literary device have a standpoint?

krodha wrote:
The point of the basis being a "literary device" is that it is a principle that is used to indicate one's nature that hasn't been recognized yet. Once the basis is recognized it becomes the path. So it isn't something that is real and truly established as a thing in itself.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
There is no enlightenment. There is no nonenlightenment.

krodha wrote:
Many people make this error nowadays.

There is only "no enlightenment and no non-enlightenment" from the standpoint of one's nature i.e., the basis. But the practitioner is not their nature, the practitioner works with his/her knowledge of their nature.... and so for the practitioner there certainly is "enlightenment".


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
Fortunately, there is no "I" to take offense. It is not about who said what. The truth is self-authenticating.

krodha wrote:
Dzogchen and Buddhism are never dealing with an "I" or a "self", so negating the "I" is a fool's errand that solves nothing.

Instead they deal with ignorance [avidyā], and afflictive habitual conditions of grasping that ensue as a result of said ignorance. You cannot uproot ignorance by declaring there is no "I", as this is a redundant point that has no bearing on anything due to the fact that an "I" has only ever been an imputation to begin with.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
Paul said:
This is basically Jax's point of view.

Garudavista said:
Yep. Here is an example of him saying that direct introduction is not necessary in a discussion with Malcolm at the http://www.dharmaconnectiongroup site.
Jax wrote:
Isn't Longchenpa pointing to the fact that Awareness (rigpa) cannot be attained by training, practice or any efforts of any kind? He says that because Awareness is fully present right now. Its not hidden. He even says in the same text that no "direct introduction" or realization is necessary. Your cognitive presence that is experiencing, is the experience, of the five senses, as well as your thoughts and emotions...is this timelessly present Knowingness, that Norbu call pure "noticing". It's not more present after practice or study or transmission. Its the clear unchanging Awareness that appears as everything. Is it really so hard to notice that the Awareness he is speaking of is your present open and clear awareness just as it is?

Malcolm wrote:
No actually, what Longchenpa is talking about vidyā as dharmakāya.

Because vidyā is essenceless, because a substantial active agent is contradicted in the real state, and because it has always been naturally formed, there are no stages to train on, paths to traverse, mandala to create, empowerment to receive, path to meditate, commitments to protect, activities to accomplish and so on. There is no need create again what has already formed naturally. If it were necessary, conventionally designating natural formation as unconditioned would be invalid. Consequently, the dharmakāya would be perishable because it would be conditioned, and because it would have been made by causes and conditions.

The purpose of this statement is to point out that in reality there are no agent and actions so therefore these following things do not exist in vidyā, the dharmakāya. It does not mean that there is nothing to do. Most people are unaware that lhun grub means "not made by anyone". It means that vidyā cannot be fabricated, only recognized.

But Longchenpa does not say that introduction is unnecessary. On the contrary, chapter nine explicitly teachs introduction:

"From the two systems in which naked vidyā is suddenly recognized, this is the introduction which does not depend on critical points. Since that stark, uninterrupted and uniform awareness (which does not move outwardly, grasp inwardly, rest in middle, is not fabricated with the mind and is without conceptual movement) exists at all times, by introducing it's naked arising within the state of the blessing at the time when the master and student are momentarily in the same state, starkness is seen nakedly. That alone can generate confidence in dharmakāya. The critical point is to sustain that state without meditation and without distraction."

Then of course there is the system of introduction that depends on six critical points.

However your contention "He even says in the same text that no 'direct introduction' or realization is necessary." is proven to be false.

krodha wrote:
It's actually originally from here, and then was re-posted to the dharmaconnection blog:

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=7810&start=0


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 15th, 2015 at 10:43 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
I have internalized "Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness," by Guru Padmasambhava and the accompanying commentary by John Reynolds. As the text says, there are no antecedent or subsequent requirements. It is not accurate to say that it is used to transmit the Direct Introduction, the reason being that the text itself IS the Direct Introduction, without intermediary. No Lung is required. It is simple, straightforward, perfectly understandable, and requires no further explanation or elaboration. It does not require an extraneous transmission, insofar as the text IS the transmission, and this is the very purpose it serves. The text is sufficient in and of itself. To argue anything other than this is to be motivated by an agenda that contradicts the essential message of the text itself. This text is exactly what it claims to be, without obscurations. Those who come to a complete internalization of this root text will clearly see the nature of their own mind.

krodha wrote:
Does someone feed you this b.s. and then you regurgitate it? Or do you just make this stuff up as you go along?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 8:31 AM
Title: Re: If 5 skandha are empty, why would you need to save being
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Or, as Berkeley's favorite tulku Pema Khandro Rinpoche puts it:

asunthatneversets said:
"Berkeley's favorite tulku" is a far stretch.

dzogchungpa said:
Hmm, maybe you have a point there but, you have to admit, she is pretty holotropic.

krodha wrote:
I wouldn't know, you're the one with the affinity for her.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: If 5 skandha are empty, why would you need to save being
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Or, as Berkeley's favorite tulku Pema Khandro Rinpoche puts it:

krodha wrote:
"Berkeley's favorite tulku" is a far stretch.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 3:51 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Ivo said:
I don't mean to get in the way of Dzogchungpa's self expression, but can you be so kind to tell me a name of a genuine Dharma teacher who engages in criticizing other teachers?

krodha wrote:
I'm not sure how this question is relevant. We are discussing the evaluation and examination of teachers in general, no one said anything about criticism, although sometimes criticism (hopefully constructive) and critique is warranted.

Ivo said:
If this is too hard, and since we are so big here on scriptural authority, can you please provide a quote from a traditional Dharma scripture encouraging a student to judge and evaluate the teachers of others,

krodha wrote:
Teachers are to be evaluated in general. There is no guidelines which state it should be one's own teacher as opposed to Jane Doe's teacher, especially when Jane Doe requests advice.

Ivo said:
The key phrase here is - "the teachers of others" - i.e. not a teacher we want to study with.

krodha wrote:
Right, these distinctions are not made. Either way though, this thread was started because someone was looking for advice regarding a specific individual's view who presents himself as a teacher, and our fellow forummers obliged as they should.

An evaluation was offered in the same way a veterinarian or a mechanic should be evaluated. If someone needs to have their pet taken care of, or have their vehicle fixed, should we hold our tongues about an alleged specialist who is unqualified to be providing those services? Of course not, so why is this any different?

Ivo said:
Because this point somehow seems difficult to grasp, despite having been explained several times.

krodha wrote:
Explained by who? No one here is obligated to accept any "point" that is made by you, I, or anyone else.

And when it comes down to it, I could say the same to you: that the points made by so-and-so in this thread seem difficult to grasp, despite having been explained several times. But I am not pompous enough to suggest that, because at the end of the day you are entitled to your own opinions and views, and your conduct and activities are your own to guard. Why should I attempt to condition you?

Ivo said:
And, to put it in yet another way. Whom are you emulating when you say that it is OK to judge and criticize teachers who you have no association with?

krodha wrote:
How would you know whether I've associated with X teacher or not? For someone who is so concerned with judgement and criticism you sure seem to be judging and criticizing quite a bit... such is the nature of projection though.

Ivo said:
I know of no Dharma teaching or teacher which/who encourages this.

krodha wrote:
You know of no dharma teaching that states teachers should be evaluated? I know my own teacher Chogyal Namkhai Norbu often cites the example of a honey bee that flies from flower to flower, a metaphor for the aspirant who goes from teaching to teaching, teacher to teacher investigating and evaluating them so that they can find the right fit.

Granted in that example that endeavor applies to oneself, but again, someone came to this forum asking for advice regarding a specific "teacher" for their own sake, and have now received that advice. So what is the problem?

Ivo said:
We are arguing over something so basic in Dharma, that it is way beyond ridiculous. Criticizing others is not Dharma, pure and simple.


krodha wrote:
If criticizing others is not dharma, then perhaps you should be quiet.

Ivo said:
It runs against every precept, explanation, and example one can point at. There is no justification for doing this if one is a Dharma practitioner.

krodha wrote:
The only justification is compassion. It is the compassionate thing to do.

Ivo said:
We are not an evangelical church, we are not out there to save souls.

krodha wrote:
No one is proselytizing. This isn't the Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición.

Ivo said:
We are not here to tell anyone that samsara is bad, and that enlightenment is good.

krodha wrote:
Why are you implying that anyone here is engaged in activities of this nature? No one is proselytizing and attempting to push views onto those who are not interested or receptive.

Ivo said:
If someone ask us for help, of course we can help.

krodha wrote:
Right, and someone did ask for help, they came to this forum asking for advice, and received it. No one here actively pursued others who had no interest in the discussion, trust me, no one cares that much.

Ivo said:
But if we just want to make an impression, and if we actually want to follow the Buddhadharma, we can do this by aspiration and example only.

krodha wrote:
I don't think anyone is interested in making impressions, except for you. Someone started this thread asking for advice, they got advice, case closed.

If, with the intention of identifying and teaching higher and lower views, other precepts are deprecated, this is not transgression, but greatly increases merit.
- rtsa ba'i ltung ba bcu bzhi pa'i grel pa gsal byed 'khrul spong


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 8:36 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Somebody doth protest too much, methinks.

krodha wrote:
Agreed, you do protest a bit too much, in your signature and awkward passive aggressive manner.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 8:06 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Are you insinuating that unqualified individuals should be allowed to teach without being subject to evaluation or investigation? And those who scrutinize them are "haters"?

You do realize that this is an irresponsible attitude that goes directly against the advice given by the adepts of the past, yes?

dzogchungpa said:
Insinuating?

Moi?

Whatever could you be smoking?

krodha wrote:
Look, I get that you want to play games and put on your little act, play the role of the contrarian and so on, but I'm genuinely interested. Are you truly meaning to suggest that teachers should not be evaluated? Because these teachings state otherwise, and even go as far as to state that a relationship with an unqualified teacher that is already formed should be severed immediately if said teacher deviates from what is agreeable in terms of these teachings.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 7:31 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Possibly of interest, from Berkeley's favorite tulku Pema Khandro Rinpoche:
http://ngakpa.org/library/haters-and-who-they-really-are-2/

krodha wrote:
Are you insinuating that unqualified individuals should be allowed to teach without being subject to evaluation or investigation? And those who scrutinize them are "haters"?

You do realize that this is an irresponsible attitude that goes directly against the advice given by the adepts of the past, yes?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: Mass shooting in Oregon today
Content:
krodha wrote:
And here's an archive of the entire thread:

https://archive.moe/r9k/thread/22785073/

Truly tragic.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Mass shooting in Oregon today
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
What's crazy is the shooter announced he was going to open fire at an undisclosed Northwest campus last night on the 4chan boards, and people there encouraged him to go through with it.

Son of Buddha said:
People might not like me saying this but is there anyway to charge those people with a crime who knew what he planned on doing and ENCOURAGED him to carry out mass murder?

krodha wrote:
I believe so. There was another case recently which involved a young girl who encouraged her friend to commit suicide. He went through with it and she is being prosecuted for her role in the matter (charged with involuntary manslaughter). I don't see why this would be any different.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 6:12 AM
Title: Mass shooting in Oregon today
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
A 20-year-old young man shot and killed 13 people, wounding almost 20 others, before being killed by police at Umpqua Community College this morning around 10:30a.

May all beings be swiftly liberated from samsara.
May we redouble in our efforts to help them without exception.


krodha wrote:
What's crazy is the shooter announced he was going to open fire at an undisclosed Northwest campus last night on the 4chan boards, and people there encouraged him to go through with it.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 1st, 2015 at 8:30 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Garudavista said:
Status is the relative social standing of someone, which can be based on a number of things, such as what that person does. ChNN gives direct pointing, provides lungs and teaches and promotes the short and long thun and vajra dance, all of which Mr. Peterson has harshly criticized. Here are but just a couple s of that criticism:


krodha wrote:
In your screen shot here, he advocates for Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's teachings, yet elsewhere he again, alludes to the fact that Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche is incorrect in his expositions.

For example, Jackson cites this passage from one of Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's books:

"When you say original wakefulness, yeshe or wisdom, it by definition means a knowing for which there is no object. When you say thought, or namshey, it means a knowing with structure of subject and object. Yeshe is a knowing that doesn’t fixate in a dualistic way, whereas our ordinary knowing is dualistic fixation. Dualistic fixation should be destroyed. That’s the reason we strive so diligently in meditation and recognize mind essence. Yeshe is primordial knowing."

To which one of his "students", who quite obviously has no idea what they are talking about, states:

Started to really enjoy [the quotation], then saw words "destroy" "strive so diligently".. oops. Trekchod is "no" striving, 'no" destroying of anything, even thoughts, especially thoughts. Dzogchen texts say again and again, when we are in view, thoughts self-liberate without our doing anything about them.

And instead of correcting this mistaken view, Jackson affirms this criticism and claims X student corrects Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:

Yes, [student's name], that right! You correct Tulku Urgyen on this point! lol!


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, October 1st, 2015 at 8:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Ivo said:
As for Jax, whom I do not have the pleasure to know personally, I see in him strong disagreement with some of his teachers methods, but I have never seen evidence of him questioning their status as teachers, or their realization.

krodha wrote:
Well, he has questioned their status as teachers and their realization.

I've seen him on various occasions asserting that advice given by X teacher is bizarre, weird, silly, etc., and advice of that nature really makes you question their authenticity.

Ivo said:
Either way I do not really care, but I do think that policing other practitioners should not be part of anyone's Dharma practice.

krodha wrote:
Since he presents himself as a teacher, there is nothing wrong with scrutinizing him. If he was just a practitioner sharing an opinion then sure, no reason to police him. But he doesn't present himself as a practitioner, he presents himself as an authority, a teacher, and so that title should be examined, investigated and evaluated.

Padmasambhava states:

Having an unexamined teacher is like jumping into an abyss;
Having an unexamined student is like drinking poison.

And from the Rig pa rang shar:

Very proud and ignorant,
Followed because of his foolish words,
Without any realization of the meaning of secret mantra,
His arrogant words disparaging others,
Engaging in a false path,
Not seeing the face of the initiation mandala,
Becoming lax in his vows,
Not coming up with the answers to pure questions,
Very proud of the little he has learned,
The unexamined master is a demon of a master.

Jigme Lingpa's commentary on the above passage:

As it says, do not get involved with such a demonic master.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 7:59 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
smcj said:
Well, be that as it may, Yogacara is a buddhist view. And whether it is higher or lower to Madhyamaka does not seem to matter that much. As I've said elsewhere, to me the highest teaching is the one that helps a specific individual progress the most.

krodha wrote:
Incidentally, I have to tell this to Son of Buddha quite often since he believes there is truly such thing as objectively provisional and definitive views.

smcj said:
And quite frankly for my the Yogacara?Shentong view makes the most sense and allows me to practice with the least confusion and doubt. And if that makes me an eternalist, well I will allow my teachers to address that issue.

krodha wrote:
That doesn't make you an eternalist, but it is very easy to formulate eternalist views based on those teachings, which is why many eternalists gravitate towards those teachings. They can manipulate them to fit their desired (eternalist) narratives much easier than other Buddhist views.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 7:10 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Queen Srimala Sutra

Chapter 9: The true understanding of the meaning of emptiness V97. O’ Bhagavan, the wisdom of the Buddha Nature is the World Honored One’s wisdom of Sunyata[Emptiness]. The Buddha Nature is not something that has been seen or realized by any Arhat, or Pratyekabuddha. There are two types of Emptiness wisdom concerning the Buddha Nature which are as follows. (1) The Buddha nature is empty from, separate from, independent from and different from all the stores of defilement. (2) The Buddha nature is not-empty from, is not separate from, not independent from and not different from the inconceivable Buddha Attributes which are more numerous than the sands of the river Ganges. V98. O Bhagavan, The great Sravaka’s can have faith and entrust themselves to the Buddha through the two types of emptiness wisdom of the Buddha Nature. All the disciples and Pratyekabuddhas are stuck in the domain of the four inverse views because of their incorrect knowledge of emptiness. This is why none of the Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas have ever seen or attained the Buddha Nature. Only the Buddha’s have experienced the extinction of all suffering and destroyed all the stores of defilement. They alone have practiced all the paths which lead to the extinction of suffering.

Further commentary

Awakening of Faith in Mahayana
Suchness has two aspects if predicated in words. One is that it is truly empty (sunya), for this aspect can, in the final sense, reveal what is real. The other is that it is truly nonempty (a-sunya), for its essence itself is endowed with undefiled and excellent qualities.

1. Truly Empty
Suchness is empty because from the beginning it has never been related to any defiled states of existence; it is free from all marks of individual distinction of things, and it has nothing to do with thoughts conceived by a deluded mind. It should be understood that the essential nature of Suchness is neither with marks nor without marks; neither not with marks nor not without marks; nor is it both with and without marks simultaneously; it is neither with a single mark nor with different marks; neither not with a single mark nor not with different marks; nor is it both with a single and with different marks simultaneously. In short, since all unenlightened men discriminate with their deluded minds from moment to moment, they are alienated from Suchness; hence, the definition “empty”; but once they are free from their deluded minds, they will find that there is nothing to be negated.

2. Truly Nonempty
Since it has been made clear that the essence of all things is empty, i.e., devoid of illusions, the true Mind is eternal, permanent, immutable, pure, and self-sufficient; therefore, it is called “nonempty”. And also there is no trace of particular marks to be noted in it, as it is the sphere that transcends thoughts and is in harmony with enlightenment alone.

krodha wrote:
You do realize this is agreeing with the general Mahāyāna presentation of emptiness found in the prajñāpāramitā and Madhyamaka, yes?

"Non-empty" is simply a play on words to convey that one's nature is not deprived of Buddha qualities, which all Mahāyāna systems agree with... so this is a non-controversial view.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 7:04 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
I agree the Prajnaparamita Sutras were taught for the timid who are afraid of the Lion's Road of Emptiness.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 6:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Oh obviously he is talking about my interpretation of the yogacara teaching's, he obviously wasn't saying that the Yogacara Sutra's and commentaries were provisional or that Yogacara as a system was realist and lowly, beneath the Madhyamaka system

krodha wrote:
Which I do agree with, Madhyamaka is far more refined than Yogācāra, since Yogācāra ends up a realist view.

Either way, this doesn't change the fact that many criticisms that are leveled against you are addressing your own interpretations.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 6:24 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Also the OP asked for a list of Buddhist teachers that taught True Self teachings, he didn't ask for a list of names for people on DW that want to complain because he is using Sutras and commentaries of the Yogacara tradition....... Also the fact that you think its okay to harass people just because they follow a different tenent system than your's SMACKS of Sectarianism.

krodha wrote:
For this charge of "sectarianism" to be valid you would first have to be accurately representing the system you claim to be representing. However since you are not, and all you are doing is parading around your own meager and unrefined misunderstanding of these teachings, it is again, not the teachings themselves that are being addressed, but your own misinterpretations.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
The meaning of the Sutra is explicit...

Malcolm said:
No, it really isn't.

dzogchungpa said:
Apparently some fairly reputable teachers think it is: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=15368&p=213897#p213897

krodha wrote:
Those teachers are not addressing the meaning, or whether said meaning is implicit or explicit [i.e., meant to be taken literally].

The point being made above is that Son of Buddha is far to literal minded to understand that sūtra properly and so he takes the text at face value, which causes him to believe it is describing a real "self". He doesn't get that "self" is a rhetorical device.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
frankc said:
The Citta is beyond concepts. I've already sent stuff on this forum that says that. But to explain it to other people you have to use concepts. I also didn't say the Thai Forest Tradition calls it a "self" It's not really the point. The teaching is that it is independent of the five khandas, cannot be destroyed, beyond the three characteristics of dukkha, anicca, and anatta, and when you become enlightened it merges with nirvana and returns home.

krodha wrote:
There is no difference between your "citta" and Advaita's purusa.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 10:12 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Vimalakirti432 said:
Non-Duality, by David Loy. I don't endorse everything he says, but I do think he's one of the few people I know that has made a real effort to tactfully look past the labels.)

Malcolm said:
The problem with Loy, and I told him so, 25 years ago at BU, is that he does not differentiate between ontological non-dualism [Hinduism], and epistemic non-dualism [Buddhadharma], in fact he conflates them.

krodha wrote:
So does Vimalakirti432, incidentally.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Vimalakirti432 said:
So I've been following this eternalism dustup, and here's what puzzles me. In the context of a non-supernaturalist view of the dharma (if you'll allow me that for the moment) the line you're taking here makes perfect sense to me.


krodha wrote:
A "supernaturalist" view or otherwise is not relevant to this issue at all.

Vimalakirti432 said:
If the goal is simply to attain that complete letting go, that non-fabrication etc. which is the culmination of the holy life, etc. (again be charitable and let this go as well if this is not precisely the way you would put things), then obviously it matters not in the least what comes after.

But given what I would call the supernaturalist view, which entails rebirth, etc., your firm rejection of eternalism would appear to open you up to the opposite charge of annihilationism.

krodha wrote:
I never said that an existent becomes a non-existent, so I've never once alluded to anything that even remotely resembles annihilationism. I also don't reject rebirth, so not sure what you're taking about.

Vimalakirti432 said:
I know the familiar passages in the suttas where the Buddha, as Thathagata and therefore unconditioned, is said to be beyond the reach of the usual categories.

krodha wrote:
Which is non-controversial.

Vimalakirti432 said:
But is it not probable that the Buddha's non response/evasion of a clear answer was upaya, and that the question remains? If the goal of Buddhism truly is not annihilation than there must be something going on other than the breaking up of the aggregates and the end of rebirth.

krodha wrote:
Who said anything about he goal being the breaking up of the aggregates? What are you talking about?

Vimalakirti432 said:
So is this upaya from your point of view as well, part of training in non-clinging, metaphysical tact in the interest of achieving an experience and not a mere confection of words? It seems to me that all these "heretical" attempts to characterize in some way the ultimate goal only arise because the question remains open.

krodha wrote:
Is what upāya?

Vimalakirti432 said:
It seems to me that playing whack-a-moles with eternalism is not enough. One really needs to address the question at hand in a way that truly avoids both extremes. There are various ways of doing this, I'm sure. But how do you, personally, address this question?

krodha wrote:
How do I approach a freedom from extremes? The same way everyone else does in the buddhadharma, emptiness [non-arising].


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
How many is many?

krodha wrote:
It's okay if you like him dzogchungpa, he teaches about souls and God and true selves... stuff that's right up your alley.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
No Maha Bua is not considered a heretic by many in Thailand, this a case where you are straight up running your mouth and lying about a deceased Buddhist teacher who was actually considered an Arhant by the vast majority of Thailand.

krodha wrote:
His views are considered to be controversial by many.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
frankc said:
Perhaps they just have another narrative they are trying to confirm which isn't an eternalist narrative.

krodha wrote:
Not usually. Eternalists generally seem to have some level of existential angst that they are trying to quell through clinging to the idea of a transcendent identity. Those who don't adhere to views of that nature are, in my experience, generally more intellectually honest when it comes to understanding various principles and reading texts. They don't allow confirmation biases to dominate their comprehension, and are not driven by desire and fear.

frankc said:
How can a Buddhist not have an eternalist narrative anyways?

krodha wrote:
It's quite simple. Don't seek to affirm unconditioned existents, homogenous ontological principles, and transpersonal ultimates.

frankc said:
The Buddha describes Nirvana as the supreme happiness.

krodha wrote:
Which has nothing to do with an eternalist view.

frankc said:
How can something be a supreme happiness if there is nothing left after the five khandas break apart to experience it.

krodha wrote:
There are various presuppositions in this question that demonstrate a meager understanding of the buddhadharma. Either that, or a clear indication that you have not even attempted to cultivate a balanced view.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
That actually not my view that is what is taught in the Nirvana Sutra
Nirvana Sutra
“Sena asked: “According to Gotama’s opinion, then, that there is no ‘I’, let me ask what can be the meaning of that description he gives of Nirvana, that it is permanent, full of joy, personal, and pure?” Buddha says: “Illustrious youth, I do not say that the six external and internal organs, or the various species of knowledge, are permanent, etc; but what I say is that “that” is permanent, full of joy, personal, and pure, which is left after the six organs and the six objects of sense, and the various kinds of knowledge are all destroyed. Illustrious youth, when the world, weary of sorrow, turns away and separates itself from the cause of all this sorrow, then, by this voluntary rejection of it, there remains that which I call the True Self; and it is of this I plainly declare the formula, that it is permanent, full of joy, personal, and pure.”].

krodha wrote:
Again, it is your own interpretation. Others can read the same text and walk away with a completely different view on the matter, which is in most cases more accurate due to the fact that they don't have an eternalist narrative they are seeking to confirm.

Also, the Mahāyāna-mahaparinirvana sutra never uses the term "true self" at any point in time, so it is clear that the translation you usually cite was crafted by an individual who also has an eternalist agenda.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 2:21 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Vimalakirti432 said:
Here I feel you're latching on to metaphysical terms as if they were real things, and missing the point of what I said. Perhaps you might read again? It's short!

krodha wrote:
I mean, terms and concepts communicate specific views and experiential insights. Buddhism has no problem with concepts, this isn't neo-Advaita.

Vimalakirti432 said:
In my view, we need to look to overall systems and their methodology, not fixate on individual terms or pieces of reasoning out of their context.

krodha wrote:
Overall systems, their methodologies and resultant insights are what I'm addressing.

Vimalakirti432 said:
We need to look at the actual states and experiences envisioned or attained, and not at metaphysical descriptors that are always ambiguous and usually misleading.

krodha wrote:
I'm not sure why they would be misleading, they're fairly straightforward if you understand the systems you are discussing.

Vimalakirti432 said:
The point is not whether some term is styled "ontological" etc. or not

krodha wrote:
This is straw man since I never said I was fixating on terms.

Vimalakirti432 said:
Here I feel you're in danger of trying to carry the raft to the other shore.

krodha wrote:
Vimalakirti, help, this raft is so heavy.




Help.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 10:42 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
steve_bakr said:
If you have specific issues about teaching, you should articulate these without attacking the person. Our demeanor expresses our realization, am I right or not?

All I have seen here are anecdotes. I have not seen anyone address specific points of teaching.

krodha wrote:
Here:

1. He is not a qualified teacher.
2. has not completed the practices he teaches.
3. teaches neo-Advaita dressed up as Dzogchen.
4. inserts the result into the basis.
5. rejects the path.
6. merely negates imputation instead of addressing underlying causes.
7. loses the conduct in the view.
8. errs into eternalism.
9. errs into nihilism.
10. confuses mind for wisdom.
11. confuses marigpa for rigpa.
12. conflates tenet systems and their underlying principles.
13. claims to have knowledge of teachings and principles that he does not truly understand.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Malcolm said:
"Ground of being" is a term coined by the theologian Paul Tillich to describe God.

dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, you are very fond of pointing this out but, honestly, it is not relevant.

krodha wrote:
It makes all the difference in the world. The proper way of understanding the gzhi is as a conventional literary device that represents an epistemic insight that has yet to be recognized.

If on the other hand you insist that the gzhi is some sort of ontological ground, then one misunderstands Dzogpachenpo altogether.


